Register The Click

 Remember when computers acted like computers?

Remember when you could tell a computer, "when this condition exists, do these things, then report the outcome"?  ...if the computer hardware and firmware was nominally operational, it would just follow the instructions and do the things.

I have a pair of Raycon "everyday earbuds" which ... work ... mostly.  When they work... WHEN they work correctly, they sound decent and stay in my ear for a little while.  ...which... y'know...  is mediocre.

When I open the little case and put the earbuds in my ears... about 50% of the time one of them has not woken up.  I then have to futz around and fumble with the sleepy one for a couple minutes to wake it up.  That's great.  When I go to STOP using them, I'll manually pause whatever media, open the case, remove one bud and place it in the case, then the other.  Close the case.  Wait a few seconds.  Resume playback of the media.  It's playing in the little earbud case.  Pause media again, go into Bluetooth menu on phone and manually disengage the earbuds.  Bump media back 30 seconds and resume play.  I have not run these earbud through multiple laundry cycles (not even one).  I have sweated pretty vigorously on them, but... they're earbuds.  People supposedly use them while working out and stuff.  In the rain.  That seems unlikely to be the problem.

Some of the blame may rest with Android (the Operating System on my phone), some may rest with the firmware in the tiny computers in the earbuds and the case that manage pairing, charging, and ... I don't know... selling my ear canal dimensions to Chinese data brokers?

In any event, it seems to me that there has been a trend ongoing since at least the arrival of Java that has put so much abstraction between when I press a "button" someplace and what happens as a consequence that it's basically up to a dice roll whether or not anything actually happens... and if something DOES happen, whether or not it's what I intend... that computers have become essentially useless.  

My user experience is getting sensibly and quantifiably worse with every new UI "improvement".  

I blame "capacitive touch sensors".  Seriously.  The promise of multi-touch screens was huge, and, after a decade or so of beta testing in production... they're about 70-80% there.  In that time, one-page web applications and smart-phone apps have banked on these touch screens being viable and reliable.  They are not.  Is it humid?  Is it dry?  Are your hands sweaty?  Have they been sweaty?  What's the pH of your skin?  Are you near a source of RF energy?  Are you in a hurry?  Did you press hard enough?  Did you press too hard?  Does the size of the touch surface impact its effectiveness?  It kinda seems so...  Couple this ridiculousness with the fact that UI designers are steering away from things like feedback.  An animation or color change or "click" to acknowledge a "button push".  Not in five minutes.  FUCKING NOW.  ...and maybe an indication that the thing is actually working on something and hasn't just FROZEN.  A throbber, a progress bar... a CLI spinner or series of periods as the process moves forward.  I can do without proportionally-spaced anti-aliased vector fonts and window transparency if it means I can get what I need done, done... without all the anxiety of "did my button push register?!" and waiting in uncertainty for some indication that I will get the result I want.  

I want my computer experience to be as reliable, immediate, responsive, and free from anxiety as playing actual real live acoustic drums.  I hit drum with stick, drum does what it's supposed to do, immediately, and without any perceptible "consideration".  I want it to be entirely predictable.  If I hit the head dead center, I expect it to sound rich and full,  If I hit it off-center, I expect it to sound pinched and a little funny tonally.  If I hit the rim, I expect it to add a certain additional sound.  I don't have to watch my stick hit each drum and wait for it to make a sound.  I can not-look-at-the-drums while I'm playing and have a fair idea of whether I'm hitting them correctly.  Right away.  I have confidence in drums.  I have no confidence in modern computer user interfaces.

I don't hold out any hope that I'll see an eight-core, sixteen-thread personal computer running at four gigahertz with thirty-two gigabytes of RAM that can get out of its own goddamned way and and just register a fucking button push when I push the fucking button, rather than waiting until it takes another screenshot and "encrypts" it so Microsoft can... what? ...masturbate to it?  I don't need the window to be transparent.  I don't need fancy convolving animations and sound effects to know that I just minimized a window.  Register the click and do the thing.  NOW.

First of all, I need feedback.  Give me confidence that I have actually pressed a button. 

PCB Prototyping - A Reflection

PCB Prototyping - A Reflection

My most recent orders with JLCPCB and OSHPark got me thinking:

1. That's a curious price difference between the ITX motherboard and the older SystemIO board 
2. I haven't quoted the same board with both shops.  Hmm.

ITX (yes, I know it says "ATX") board order from JLCPCB.
Also, the latest iteration of the SystemIO board for comparison.

Quote for ITX board (using the same Gerber files as the JLCPCB order) from OSHPark

OSHPark vs. JLCPCB pricing.  It's stark.  The R65 ITX board is 14 times more expensive @ OSHPark for only 60% of the product.  Per-board it's 23 times more expensive.  Call me crazy, but I don't see that as a trivial difference.  I'm sure if I was ordering at quantity from OSHPark, the per-piece price would be substantially lower, but I don't see them getting close to the "prototyping quantity" price from JLCPCB. 

I'm not trying to shit on OSHPark.  I'm glad they exist, and I'm glad they get business.  Seriously.  Their default PCB prototyping offering is decent, it's a little more featureful than offshore vendors, and for small quantities of small boards, the pricing is higher but not prohibitive.  I don't know about longevity of the boards... or greater-than-2-layer boards... quality of adhesives and so on.  

I have to say, though, that the packaging for shipping I've seen from OSHPark has been abysmal.  It's a heavy paper envelope.  Boards rattling around, unrestrained and unprotected.  I've had solder mask abraded away in shipping.  JLCPCB has shipped every board I've ordered, regardless of size, vacuum-packed in thick shrink bubble wrap with desiccant, packed in a box.  

Real-world turn times from China using DHL (the default shipping option) are on par with OSHPark -- a little more than a week.

I'm not getting any payment or barter or sponsorship or anything from JLCPCB.  I've just been very impressed with their quality, efficiency, and price.

You're certainly free to make the choices that work for you... and I know OSHPark has some community cachet and word-of-mouth defaultness like Kleenex/Xerox in the electronics hobby area... but I couldn't iterate like I have up to this point at OSHPark prices.  

"Science Journalism" -- a rant.

It's sentences like this, 'This includes innards like logic circuitry, which enable your computer to make complex non-binary decisions like “or,” “and,” or “if only” instead of simply “yes” or “no”.' in this superficially interesting article  that just immediately cause me to hate the article, be deeply disappointed by the author, and just want humanity to finish dying already.

I hate the article because it contains the construct.  "or" and "and" are boolean operators... yes, they are expressly, definitionally binary.  "if only" ... I don't know what to do with this.  Is there a circuit that makes a computer engage in wistful speculation?  This is one of those things that brings the whole house of cards down for me.  How can I trust anything in this article, which required actual effort to research, when it gets something so basic, clearly defined, and easily verifiable, wrong?  

I am deeply disappointed by the author because a) She took an interesting historical topic relating to technology and sacrificed it in the volcanic caldera of the Lowest Common Denominator; b) In pandering to a non-technical audience, she got the technical bits wrong, and in so doing, planted the seeds of misconception in the minds of her "don't know better" audience members; and c) she is an award-winning "science journalist" and should know better -- according to her Bio page on Inverse , 'Sarah earned her M.S. in science journalism from Boston University in 2018 and was awarded SciShortForm's "Top Pick" blog and honorable mention in 2019. She is also a member of the National Association of Science Writers.'  MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE JOURNALISM from BOSTON UNIVERSITY.  Just hold that turd in your mouth for a couple minutes... let the flavors develop.  Remember, kids:  You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

I just want humanity to finish dying already because we're over 40 years into the "personal computer revolution" (to say nothing of the 70-ish years since general purpose programmable computers became a practical "thing") and "popular press" audiences still need fundamental logic explained to them in a manner akin to "when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they do a special hug that makes a baby", and the popular press delivers it like, "all hugs make babies special mommies and daddies."  How is this a thing?  We've had 2 generations to inculcate children with a basic understanding of what the difference between "and" and "or" is.  Nope.  Let's buy new football uniforms, instead.  

I understand the "cool" thing in journalism is being dispassionate... well you need to be passionate about one thing:  not saying wrong things.  ...and the audience cares enough, maybe, to read the article, but not enough to stop at a bit that makes no sense, or seems to contradict itself, and check elsewhere.  That's probably the only exposure a lay audience member is going to get to some inkling of what a logic gate is, and now that lay audience member "understands" it wrong, instead of not knowing.  Do you want Trump for President?  Because this is how you get Trump for President.