As a down side they are extremely difficult to design for good quality output. Basically impossible for an amateur.

ladyada made a board design that incorporates a class-D amplifier chip, it's open source: https://www.adafruit.com/product/1752 https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit-MAX9744-Amplifier-PCB

I'm not sure which is the hard part you're referring to- implementing the amplifier itself, or the board around it. I don't think an amateur would want to build their own class-D from raw components except for pedagogical purposes.

(i've been pretty happy with the results, I used the board to drive a couple speakers and the amplifier is not the first thing I'd fix to improve the audio quality.

Sure, the old performance/productivity tradeoff.

This quickly solves the problem then you can iterate for performance.

If you iterate a python dictionary it will return the keys in insert order.

For sort order you need to sort separately.

A missile is too heavy, it's easier to just fly the drone into the jammer if you can locate it.

For FPV drones both Ukraine and russia but the components from China and assemble them locally.

Ukraine is very worried that China is trying to cut them off, so they buy through a long chain of intermediaries.

Since some parents actively control what their kids watch it makes sense to create a show optimized for that niche - you increase parent appeal, but this will decrease kids appeal, so now you have an optimization problem to solve.

It would be interesting to see a chart with kids preferences - I bet kids enjoy Bluey far less than other shows since it's not optimized for them, but for parents.

When I was a kid it was a free market - I had a bunch of channels with a bunch of cartoons and I chose which ones to watch.

If you think about it, kids crack like addiction to cartoons doesn't make sense to adults (there are theories), so that raises questions if adults can pick for kids, and not for what they imagine kids would enjoy.

Kids are not a reliable demographic; without being “trained” to like things they’ll be perfectly happy watching baby shark on repeat.

That's true, but just like adults, what kid's brains "need" isn't always the same thing they're most stimulated by. I also think since adults are often around it's very very appreciated to not be obnoxious to adults.

Taking Bluey as a specific example, it's really nice to model positive family relationships. Sesame Street's original goal was to "master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them."

We’re not talking about the same thing here. Lots of kids shows don’t even try to make sense or have a cogent story. So not only are they insulting the intelligence of their audience, they’re also refusing to enrich their critical thinking skills at all. That’s the _other_ kind of kids show out there right now.

> Are cartoon physics insulting kids intelligence?

dclowd9901 already said the issue is when it's "just lazy storytelling". Pixar shows you can tell great stories with cartoon physics.

You don't eat only sugar. You don't eat only carbs. You don't eat only protein. Your body needs a mix.

Many people want their kids to have a healthy diet. Saying Nutella is a "sometimes food" is not the same as saying Nutella is "bad", or that it's a "never food."

Tom & Jerry is a sometimes food. Other shows exercise a different range of critical skills.

I was gobsmaked when I saw a clip from Mr. Rogers where Daniel Striped Tiger asks Lady Aber­lin "What does assas­si­na­tion mean?", in a special episode created after the assassination of RFK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv0ZtpRdNk And Mr. Rogers could tackle racism head-on, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4recJ6qXyk in an era when blacks were prohibited or physically attacked for trying to go to "white" pools.

Bluey could take on these sorts of topics for kids, in an age appropriate way. Tom&Jerry could not.

Nor could Blippi, so it's not just cartoon physics that's the issue.

But Mr. Rogers couldn't pull off the classic "coyote paints a picture in a wall, Road Runner enters the picture and speeds off into the distance, coyote tries and crashes into the wall" gag, nor should it. I don't think it's a good idea for kids to only watch Mr. Rogers-type shows either.

> kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising

Strange then that kids' cartoons are often so formulaic.

"The Animal Mechanicals are sent to a new floating island to resolve a problem. The team comes up with a plan, and each team member gets to use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end."

"Something goes wrong. The Paw Patrol are called to help. Ryder comes up with a plan, the pups use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end. Except for Mayor Humdinger."

Yep, exactly. And I should mention the show _does_ take some liberties with the plot vis a vis skimming over a lot of the setup of the stories. Try to imagine the amount of time the kids and adults would have to take to set up certain activities they do that we never see. I can scarcely imagine my daughters having the patience to go through with that much setup before actually getting to play.

But it’s all in service of telling a fun, unique story, so it gets a pass.

Sounds like someone hasn’t had to sit through blippi

Not all audio-visual entertainment is dreck and the reduction of all of it to that is elitist and shitty.

Some kids don't live in a place where they can interact with the natural world, for starters, because our society is awful.

Additionally, not everything even in kids entertainment is dreck either. You have your Bluey's, and you have pregnant Elsa spiderman keyword slurry. A spectrum you'll find in basically every media, kids and otherwise, between actual art that's made by people wanting to share something, and content-mill designed-by-committee (or AI) bullshit that's designed to keep your attention.

The unfortunately true part is now more than ever so much more of the latter of this spectrum is present than the former, because everything in our society is done for profit and not to make the world better, and it's far more profitable to make by-the-numbers repetitive minimum-viable-product garbage that people will tolerate rather than truly great things that take time and care to create that people adore. But that's a curation problem, not a problem with the media itself.

That is the point, no? That Bluey is not the average " audiovisual dreck ".

By the previous commenters opinion I assume it is. The point being to have people interact with the world instead of passively accepting high levels of stimulation for doing nothing. I believe it’s healthier for all humans of any age to engage with the input->output model of the world.

Nope, it stands out among kids shows, which are typically a wasteland of formulaic stories that amount to nothing and require no introspective thinking.

One thing I think that illustrates this is that my daughter will often have questions for me after watching Bluey. Like actual meaningful questions about life or how the world works. If she’s watching TOTS, she’s just sitting there mouth agape and maybe getting bored enough to just walk out of the room.

Again I think the premise here is that this sort of engagement with the world is better done, for example, as a conversation with an adult that can lead them to the same interesting questions and observations. I did this endlessly as a kid. I'd be sitting bored in a car and look at clouds and ask my parents how clouds worked. This wouldn't have happened if I was given a smart phone.

I don’t disagree, and we get that time and those interactions too in various other contexts. But when I need a break, I’m far more comfortable putting my kids in front of a show like Bluey than other shows because it engages their minds.

Parenting is a marathon, not a race. If it takes a village, parents need to be able to rely on the village from the time to time.

We're not designed to live in buildings either. Or to do math. So I'm not sure about this line of reasoning, because it suggests we should go back to hunter gathering.

The moment you understand the Transformer you become incapable of explaining it.

Except that isn't the argument I am making.

We have small quantum computers, we don't have big ones.

We have fusion power on small scale, we don't have it on commercial scale.

Seems to be the same argument.

We have small, usable quantum computers and have grown them for years.

We have never had fusion power on a small scale (we have had fusion ignition/reaction, but never [afaik] generated usable power), let alone showed continuous growth in scale of that power over the years.

They're not the same. Fusion is a 'science' problem, quantum is (mostly) an 'engineering' problem.

Re-read my comment and then point out the spot where I advocated ceasing research and development of anything.