#inputs and outputs. logic

[isekyaaa]

Lazy story idea today, but what about a.... Idk how to describe this. A more lower level basic level robot falling in love with a human, so it keeps seeking to upgrade itself over and over until it has the kind of body that is the closest to that of a human.

[giti-1]

PROGRAMMING COURSES LEVEL ONE

Course Curriculum

The logic and programming

Algorithms and Flow charts

Understanding source codes.

The types of variables, constants, logical

The Input/Output.

Programming procedure

Programming in VB.Net

Programming in Python

Introducing the Object Oriented Programming

The loops and their logic

Website: https://giti-edu.ch/ 

Call: +41 /22 301 22 44

[catboybiologist]

Many billionaires in tech bros warn about the dangerous of AI. It's pretty obviously not because of any legitimate concern that AI will take over. But why do they keep saying stuff like this then? Why do we keep on having this still fear of some kind of singularity style event that leads to machine takeover?

The possibility of a self-sufficient AI taking over in our lifetimes is... Basically nothing, if I'm being honest. I'm not an expert by any means, I've used ai powered tools in my biology research, and I'm somewhat familiar with both the limits and possibility of what current models have to offer.

I'm starting to think that the reason why billionaires in particular try to prop this fear up is because it distracts from the actual danger of ai: the fact that billionaires and tech mega corporations have access to data, processing power, and proprietary algorithms to manipulate information on mass and control the flow of human behavior. To an extent, AI models are a black box. But the companies making them still have control over what inputs they receive for training and analysis, what kind of outputs they generate, and what they have access to. They're still code. Just some of the logic is built on statistics from large datasets instead of being manually coded.

The more billionaires make AI fear seem like a science fiction concept related to conciousness, the more they can absolve themselves in the eyes of public from this. The sheer scale of the large model statistics they're using, as well as the scope of surveillance that led to this point, are plain to see, and I think that the companies responsible are trying to play a big distraction game.

Hell, we can see this in the very use of the term artificial intelligence. Obviously, what we call artificial intelligence is nothing like science fiction style AI. Terms like large statistics, large models, and hell, even just machine learning are far less hyperbolic about what these models are actually doing.

I don't know if your average Middle class tech bro is actively perpetuating this same thing consciously, but I think the reason why it's such an attractive idea for them is because it subtly inflates their ego. By treating AI as a mystical act of the creation, as trending towards sapience or consciousness, if modern AI is just the infant form of something grand, they get to feel more important about their role in the course of society. Admitting the actual use and the actual power of current artificial intelligence means admitting to themselves that they have been a tool of mega corporations and billionaires, and that they are not actually a major player in human evolution. None of us are, but it's tech bro arrogance that insists they must be.

Do most tech bros think this way? Not really. Most are just complict neolibs that don't think too hard about the consequences of their actions. But for the subset that do actually think this way, this arrogance is pretty core to their thinking.

Obviously this isn't really something I can prove, this is just my suspicion from interacting with a fair number of techbros and people outside of CS alike.

[maximumzombiecreator]

Do you often use random dungeon layout generators for your megadungeons? If so, how do you make those randomly generated layouts make sense as a space? I find that the eclectic nature of how the dungeon ends up looking makes it feel weird to consider the area as a real space instead of as the output to a random generator.

I use a lot of random generation when I make megadungeons, but I pretty much never use a layout generator. That's a solution to a different problem from the one that I have. Creating an assortment of rooms connected in random ways is pretty easy for me. The problem, as you note, is making the space engaging, making it make sense, making the connections logical but also interesting, etc.

But I do think random generation is a great way to juice your creativity! Getting external input that you then have to fit your ideas into often produces better results than just trying to create on a blank slate.

My most common random tools are roll tables for generating dungeon rooms and features. Worlds Without Number is the first book I reach for for most random tables, and it has some pretty solid tables for generating rooms, features in the rooms, connections, etc. I also have a bunch of tables saved from OSR blogs for generating interesting traps or dungeon features. Honestly just rolling for the number of exits a space has is one of the simplest ways to force myself to think creatively. When the dice tell me a bedroom has six exits, it means I need to re-evaluate what that bedroom is doing and I probably need to create some unusual exits.

I will use geomorphs sometimes. These are basically bespoke little fragments of dungeon created to be shuffled and combined randomly. Dyson Logos has a bunch of these, and I know @imsobadatnicknames2 has a bunch as well. These are good for creating a bunch of interesting connections and clever tiny bits that are great for finding interesting uses for. I've never used these to generate a whole dungeon, but for small fragments I really like them. I also have a set of them handy when I run a sandbox campaign in case the players somehow end up in a dungeon I didn't prep for at all.

Now, if you do want to use a randomly generated layout, whether from some tool, a dice generator, geomorphs, whatever, I have some advice for making sense of it: embrace the second occupant effect.

It's very common in dungeons that the people who built the dungeon and the current occupants are not the same group. It's an orcish ruin occupied by dwarves, it's an ancient temple being used as a bandit hideout, it's a wizard's keep overrun by demons, etc. The question that a random layout is going to have you asking is, "Why is this constructed this way?" and it's perfectly okay for the answer to be, "there's nobody left who knows." What was this big room with seven entrances built for? Well, nobody knows, but the goblins living there are using it as a dining hall.

If you're designing using this approach, you don't need an answer for every space. You can instead approach it the same way its new occupants did. Take it for granted that this is the space that exists, how would the new occupants use it? That weird room off to the side that's a pain to access? Well, who knows what it was built for, but it's cold storage now. This weird thoroughfare makes a perfectly good guard checkpoint. This big hole in the floor might have been used for casting spells at some point, but now it's a garbage dump. In this way, it's easy to come up with what rooms are now that doesn't require you to answer what a room was built for.

Using this approach, you still want to have good answers for what a room's original purpose was some of the time. If the space just never makes sense, players will stop trying to engage with it logically, and that's a big loss. Plus, using this effect most effectively, you get a lot of value out of knowing the previous purpose of a room. It can be easy for every kitchen to feel similar, but a kitchen that's been built on what used to be a foundry is instantly more interesting and easier to get creative with. But you get to pick and choose the parts of a random layout that look interesting, or that you have an easy time answering for, and make those the parts where the original purpose shines through. And then in the spaces where you're left saying, "What is with this snarl of hallways?" you can just have the answer be, "it's a mystery. Scholars theorize it served a ritual purpose."

[captainjonnitkessler]

the main thing im struggling with in regards to AI art is if the person using AI can even call it their art. is the creator the person who put in the prompt(s)? is it the person who made the AI? is it all the artists that the AI created 0.01% of its patterns from? is it the AI itself? does the question even matter? i don't know if it's comparable to something like scrapbooking, moodboarding or interior design (see: using things You Didn't Make (magazine images, gifs, furniture) to then create your own art. the comparison just feels...off. there is a general understanding that scrapbookers/moodboarders/interior designers probably didn't create the things they're using, and people generally have a different view on it than say painting or drawing because of those differences in fundamentals. i understand that a lot of AI artists can take a lot of time, effort and skill into narrowing down prompts to get very unique and specific outputs but it feels more comparable to a commission to me. i do think there is an amount of creativity that goes into prompt-making, visualising the end product and figuring out how to get there, but i struggle to see where the line sits of "AI did this" vs "I used AI to do this". i also don't find generative AI to be very similar to other technology 'shortcuts' like digital art tools such as layering, blending and line stabilization -- generative AI is on a whole other level to that. i'd love to know your thoughts on this

I think AI generation is a tool that's the logical progression from a lot of already-existing digital art tools. We don't question whether a digital artist gets to call their work their own even though they couldn't have done it without the hundreds of people who program and maintain Photoshop and we don't question whether a traditional painter gets to call their work their own even though they didn't grind their own paints or build their own paintbrushes. For that matter, we don't call digital artists lazy hacks because they use a computer to generate colors instead of buying and mixing their own paints, because we understand it's a different medium that requires different skills - or at least, we don't anymore, because I'm pretty sure we went through all this same discourse when digital art started being a thing.

There's already plenty of art forms out there that rely on some level of randomness or automation - plenty of digital artists use custom brushes to do the grunt work of filling in foliage so they don't have to individually place every leaf, splatter artists let paint fall where it will instead of deliberately placing every dot, epoxy artists let physics and gravity pull resin across the canvas with relatively little human input. They're still artists, they're just using art styles and tools that don't rely on intention in every aspect of the art the way traditional artists might.

Overall I think if you say "sure, this person has an artistic vision they are trying to express with a tool that requires skill and practice to use effectively, but can we really call them an artist?" you're getting lost in the weeds. But I also think we've had this argument with every single advancement in art technology since we moved on from cave paintings, so I kind of wish we could just skip this one.

And because I think there's a disconnect here that people are getting tripped up on - am I saying that every person who throws a prompt into DALL-E is an artist? No, in the same way I don't call myself a photographer because I took a picture with my cellphone. But that doesn't mean the nature photographer who spends hours laboring over getting the perfect shot isn't an artist either, y'know?

[peskybirdenjoyer]

when they finally pause their (lighthearted) wars long enough to talk about their feelings for each other, grian and doc realize that they work so well together-- yin and yang, opposites that slot together perfectly.

doc is mechanical (in more than the bodily modification sense). he operates in absolutes and principles. he thinks with utter rationality, and often finds himself so caught up in the logical that he loses touch with the more humane side of himself, the side that weighs more than just the individual action and takes the concepts of empathy into account. he allows himself to fall into the anger of slights against him, no matter how petty or inconsequential; it's the most logical reaction to actions taken against him.

grian is the utter opposite. he's so all over the place, caught up in the ideals of chaos and human reactions and the overly emotional. he struggles to bring it back down to earth and grasp the more logical side of things. it's part of why redstone is so incomprehensible to him, because he wants to connect what feels right, even if it isn't logical. he doesn't get angry, but rather allows himself to be lost in the absurd, allows himself to retaliate in ways silly and almost abstract in comparison to the jokes against him.

when doc gets caught up in the self as a machine, grian brings him up into the clouds, where emotions and human reactions rule, and reminds him that no living thing exist in the black and white, no living things exist with binary with inputs and perfect outputs. when his anger towards perceived slights overwhelms him, grian turns it lighthearted, pushes back against the desperately rational anger to instead help him find the absurd within the ire.

similarly, when grian gets taken with his own emotions or goes off the rails with some insane scheme (and the frustrations of said scheme), doc grounds him in the logical and known, reminds him of where the wires should connect and how the signals should flow, recalling the simple truths within the complex for him. when grian dives too deep into the lighthearted or absurd, past the point of knowing what should count as a slight against him, doc is rational on his behalf, reasonably angry for him when he should be, and stoic when grian's tumultuous emotions call for it.

they balance each other out. it works perfectly.

[piratesexmachine420]

The theory of operation for my balanced ternary "shift register" is actually pretty simple, though it might not look like it -- once you spend some time in it, so to speak, it's totally grokable.

Ready? This is gonna be looong.

Okay.

First, in case anyone reading this is unaware of what a logic gate, truth table, or the balanced ternary number system is, you'll want to read these three Wikipedia articles to get some background knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary

Second, if you're unaware of how water and lava behave in Minecraft, you'll want to read this article from the Minecraft wiki.

Thirdly, you'll want to read these excerpts (↓) from my notes (my apologies for their quality), where I list my personal conventions and definitions for what is to come.

Got that all?

What we want to do now is try to construct some of the aforementioned logic gates with Minecraft's fluid model. Water will be used to represent 1, lava will represent T (-1), and air (neither water nor lava) will represent 0.

Believe it or not, this isn't too difficult. Most of the logic gates I describe above are rather simple to implement -- so long as we ignore the timing constraints imparted by water and lava flowing at different rates, which for the sake of brevity (brevity, lol) we will.

Two of the most fundamental of these logic gates, at least for our purposes, are MAND and OR. They are implemented like this (↓)

If you're having trouble grasping how these work, and have access to a copy of the game, I encourage you to play around with it yourself! After a while, the principles start to become pretty intuitive.

We can use these "fundamental" gates to construct the rest. ISN, ISP, NISN, and NISP can be made by simply hard-wiring one or the other of the inputs of a MAND gate to 1/water or T/lava. (Not that you'd always want to implement ISP in particular that way--it's actually the third fundamental logic gate and can be implemented via a different principle, but I digress)

From there we can construct NEG, as NEG a is equal to (NISN a) OR (NISP a); from NEG we can construct AND, because a AND b = a MAND (NEG b); and so on and so forth. (Exercise for the reader to derive the rest :P)

This brings us back to the shift register, which is primarily constructed of these (↓) little circuits who operate analogously to normally-closed relays.

Let the green input be a, the white input be b, and the output be q. When a is nonnegative (0 or 1), b will "pass through", so to speak, and q = b. When a is negative (T), q will always be 0.

Put more simply, q = b OR (ISN a) OR (NISN a). Run the numbers and you'll see how it works!

From there, it's pretty trivial to line a few of these up, tie their outputs together, and get a demultiplexer -- a circuit that takes in some number of inputs (here three) and "selects" one of them to output. Let's look at our demultiplexer now:

Let s1, s2 and s3 be the blue "selector" inputs; p1, p2, and p3 be the white "selectee" inputs; b1, b2 and b3 be the intermediate "blocking" signals (the green inputs from earlier); q1, q2 and q3 be the outputs from our relays; and q (no number) be the overall output.

The yellow and light blue circuitry are our relays, the black concrete is the aforementioned output tying-together (q = q1 OR q2 Or q3), and the blue and red circuitry is... complicated.

Its job, though, is simple: translate a positive "selecting" signal on one of its three inputs (s1, s2 and s3) into two negative "blocking" signals to be sent to the relays (b1, b2, b3).

This is implemented as follows:

b1 = (NISP (s1 OR s2 OR s3)) OR s1 b2 = (NISP (s1 OR s2 OR s3)) OR s2 b3 = (NISP (s1 OR s2 OR s3)) OR s3

In other words, b1 is negative iff s2 or s3 is positive, b2 is negative iff s1 or s3 is positive, and b3 is negative iff s1 or s2 is positive.

Let's work through an example. Say c1 is 1, c2 is 0 and c3 is T, and we set s3 to 1--"selecting" c3.

Since s1 and s2 are 0, and s3 is 1, s1 OR s2 OR s3 = 1 and NISP (s1 OR s2 OR s3) = T

It follows then that b1 = T OR s1 = T OR 0 = T, b2 = T OR s2 = T OR 0 = T, and b3 = T OR s3 = T OR 1 = 0.

Finally, since b1 and b2 are T, q1 and q2 are 0 (relay 1 and relay 2 "block" their inputs from flowing through) and since b3 is 0, q3 = p3 and thus q = q3 = p3 = T.

Got that? Great! Let's move on to the monster then.

A diagram may be in order.

Better?

The shift register (again not the correct term because this is a one-time use circuit, but I digress -- they're roughly analogous) is constructed mainly of demultiplexers (light blue boxes), as described before.

Each demuxer is selecting between the input directly above it, the input to its left, and the input to its right. (e.g. demuxer #4 is selecting between In3, In4 and In5).

The signals telling the demuxers which inputs to select (s1, s2 and s3 from earlier) are generated by the "split" box (in blue) from the "Selector" signal. If "Selector" is T, "Split" sends a positive signal to the s1 input of the demuxers; if it is 0, s2; if it is 1, s3.

This is implemented as follows:

s1 = NISN "Selector" s2 = NISN ("Sync" OR s1 OR s3) s3 = ISP "Selector"

The "Sync" signal line (in orange) and circuits (purple boxes) work to ensure the timing constraints and invariants we've so far elided are upheld. "Sync" is always either 0 (wait for sync) or T (resume), never 1.

The purple boxes work like the opposite of the relays we described earlier: they receive an input and only output it after they receive a "Sync" signal.

They are implemented as follows:

q = (a MAND "Sync") OR (a MAND (NISN "Sync"))

Likewise, the "Split" box waits for a "Sync" signal to determine if "Selector" is 0 -- if it "jumped the gun" it wouldn't be able to go back and correct its output, all fluid-based logic gates are necessarily one time use.

What does all of this nonsense accomplish?

When "Selector" is 0, the input is simply passed through; when "Selector" is T, the input is shifted left (Out1 = In2, Out2 = In3... Out6 = 0); when "Selector" is 1, the input is shifted right (Out1 = 0, Out2 = In1... Out6 = In5). This is equivalent to either multiplying or dividing the output by 3.

And that's that!

If you have any further questions, feel free to let me know! Hell, if you managed to read this whole thing, feel free to let me know! (I hope at least someone is able to...)

[techav]

On Bodging Silly Mistakes

After a few weeks of rest and working on non-homebrew-related projects since getting my 68030 stack running 8-user BASIC, I've circled back around to the project. My goal is to have it ready to exhibit for VCF Southwest 2025 in June.

The first thing to do when picking up an old project is to make sure it still works to begin with.

It did not.

The computer would start up, go through its boot process, and start the user programs. The supervisor terminal would accept and execute commands, but none of the user terminals would accept input.

I could tell the serial data was making it to the machine, because my 8-port serial card has indicator LEDs on the Transmit & Receive signals and they were working as expected. If I held down a key as the system booted, it would print that character a few times before stopping and then no longer accept any more data. So it really looked like the hardware was working. Nothing had changed in software so that wasn't likely to be the issue.

It reminded me of the problems I encountered with reading from disk when CPU cache was preventing the updated disk status bit from being read. The serial card supports asserting the CPU's Cache Inhibit signal, but perhaps that circuit wasn't functioning. There was no change with it connected or not. Time to break out the oscilloscope. The Cache Inhibit signal was always low — always asserted. Cache wasn't the problem because cache was effectively always disabled.

Out of ideas, it was time to break out the logic analyzer. The I/O Read & Write signals on the serial card were working as expected, and it was properly addressing the card & its individual ports. So next thing was to check was the actual data being read from the UARTs.

Letting the logic analyzer run and watching the data fly through, the problem finally made itself known — the UARTs were not setting bit 0 of the status byte to indicate that they had received data. The data was getting to the UART, it just wasn't acknowledged.

But why? And why did it work initially on restart and then stop? And why did it work without issue a few weeks ago? What is different?

What is different, indeed. I have made one change to the hardware since I last ran it — I added a proper watchdog/power-on-reset controller. If the power supply drops below 4.7 volts, it will reset the computer. The power supply I had been using was marginal and was getting caught by the watchdog, so I switched to a proper power PC supply.

So what's different since last time I ran the system is my reset circuit is more effective and the system voltage should be much more stable 5V.

And that's when I realized a mistake I made in the design for my 8-port serial card. The 68k reset signal is active-low and the 16C55x UART reset signal is active-high. I was trying to minimize part count, and didn't have an inverter for the reset signal, so I used what I had on hand — a buffer with an active-low enable signal.

Anyone well-versed in electronics may already see the problem.

When the CPU-RESET# signal is asserted (low), the buffer will set its output, IO-RESET to match its input, VCC (high). That's great, we get a high signal on the output whenever the CPU Reset signal is low.

Except ... what happens when the CPU Reset signal is not asserted? The buffer goes open-collector and doesn't pull the IO-RESET signal one way or the other; it's just left floating.

Floating signals are bad news for digital circuits. Their behavior is unpredictable and subject to environmental noise, power fluctuations, etc. For my IO-RESET signal to function properly, something needs to pull it low whenever the 74'125 buffer is not actively driving it high. A good-sized pull-down resistor should do the job just fine, so I dug through my stock and found a 3.65k surface-mount resistor and bodged it onto the back side of the board.

And sure enough, that fixed the problem!

It is possible that when I was running the system on that marginal power supply previously, the IO-RESET signal was able to stay just low enough to not trigger reset on the UARTs. Or it could have just been different environmental factors.

I'm glad I took the time to test the machine today, and I'm glad this bug came up. It's the kind of bug that could easily have come up when running in a new environment for the first time — such as on the show floor at VCFSW. Far better to run into a bug like this at home with access to all of the tools (and time) to figure it out.

Now that things are up and running again I can continue my testing and setup for VCFSW.

[tytarax]

Hi, its been a while since I've heard you've open your requests. Can you do a platonic request for Frieza, where female human S/O acts similarly like Twilight Sparkle. I like to think that she would freak out a little when something logically doesn't make any sense of Frieza just messing with her, cause he can.

Of courseee, it sure sounds funny. There's a friend of mine that's like her and I enjoy bothering her with anything (I'm not as brilliant as her (she's a freakin genius) so I just make things work under my logic), so I got inspired.

“Frieza, this makes absolutely no sense!”

You paced back and forth on the pristine floors of Frieza’s spaceship, a clipboard in one hand and a stylus in the other. Your brows were furrowed, and your eyes darted between Frieza and the incomprehensible mess before you. The tyrant lounged in his chair, tail swishing lazily, a smirk tugging at the corners of his lips.

“Ah, but that’s the beauty of it, dear,” Frieza drawled, resting his chin on one hand. “It doesn’t need to make sense. I simply will it so.”

You stopped mid-step and spun on your heel to face him, your frustration bubbling to the surface. “That’s not how things work! Logic, rules, cause and effect—these are fundamental principles of the universe! What you’re saying is just… chaos!”

“Precisely,” he replied, his grin widening. “And isn’t it delightful?”

It wasn’t delightful. Not to you, anyway. You gestured emphatically at the display screen, which was showing a gravity simulation that, by all accounts, should have imploded the room. Instead, objects floated serenely, unaffected by the laws of physics.

“Look at this! The equations don’t balance. The energy inputs don’t match the outputs. The… the…” You threw your hands in the air, your voice rising in pitch. “It’s impossible!”

Frieza chuckled, a low, almost musical sound that only deepened your exasperation. “Oh, dear, your obsession with logic is utterly charming. But you forget: I am no mere mortal bound by your quaint little rules. If I desire gravity to behave like a playful child, then so it shall.”

You gaped at him, your brain working overtime to reconcile his words with the reality before you. “But why?” you demanded. “What’s the point of all this?”

Frieza rose from his seat with a fluid grace, his tail flicking behind him as he stepped closer. “Why not?” he said simply, the smug amusement in his voice nearly tangible. “It’s so entertaining to watch you squirm, my dear. You remind me of a bird flapping hopelessly against a cage. Adorable, really.”

You crossed your arms, determined not to let him get under your skin. “Well, it’s not entertaining to me! Do you know how hard it is to solve a problem when you keep rewriting the rules?”

Frieza leaned down, his red eyes glinting with mischief. “Oh, but that’s the point. There is no problem to solve. It’s a game. One you can’t win.”

Your jaw tightened, and you jabbed your stylus in his direction. “If this is a game, then what’s the objective?”

“To watch you unravel, of course.” His smirk widened, utterly unrepentant.

You groaned, dragging a hand down your face. “Unbelievable. You’re doing this just to mess with me.”

“Correct,” he said, his tone dripping with satisfaction. “I must say, your reactions are priceless. Do go on.”

You threw your clipboard onto a nearby table, planting your hands on your hips. “Fine. If you want chaos, I’ll give you chaos. But don’t come crying to me when you can’t fix it.”

“Crying?” Frieza echoed, his voice laced with mock offense. “As if I, Lord Frieza, would ever stoop to such a thing. But by all means, do try.”

Challenge accepted. You marched over to the console and began tapping furiously, your mind racing to devise a way to outsmart his nonsensical alterations. Meanwhile, Frieza watched with keen interest, his smirk never faltering.

“Let’s see how your precious logic fares against divine will,” he mused, reclining once more.

You muttered something under your breath, something that sounded suspiciously like, “This is why I prefer books to people.”

Frieza, of course, heard it. His laughter echoed through the room.

Masterpost

DBS Masterlist

[chai-en-kaadhale]

a triangle and a logic gate enter a bar

((context under the cut if u dont get it))

this is an inverter (circuit/breadboard thing)

if you input something it'll output the opposite

in other words, input "A" and itll output "NOT A"

usually used for conditions like "f B and not A then C"

this is a sign that engineering is taking over my life

send help

[horny-jailbreak]

Okay here's my treatise on why mechs are so got to me: theyre a combo of computer and automobile.

Computers are hot because they're just a bunvh of logic processes that all do One Thing, but interact in such a way that they do Many Things at a massive scale. Working on a computer involves balanving all of the little logic processes that are all so interconnected that it feels and looks like manipulating magic runes. With enough knowledge, you can make any computer do any thing, you just have to manipulate it JUST right, and at that point it looks like negotiation with an intelligent human. In fact, at a certain point, a sufficiently complex robot looks a lot like the human brain, and hey isn't psychology just kinda looking at all the little logic processes that our nervous systems make in order to interact with the world? What really is the difference between the way operant conditioning takes in input in order to adjust future output and the way a computer adjusts its variables to be more precise? In this way, computers are kinda just brains that are a little less plastic and a lot more susceptible to being directly edited on the basic code level.

Automobiles, on the other hand? They are highly specialized, extremely well engineered parts all put together in order to make something that does one job Very Well. This ball joint is engineered to perfection, and when combined with this motor (also engineered and tuned to perfection) and a couple other parts (that are, likewise, engineered to perfection) they make a machine that moves an arm in a specific way Very Well. And then that arm is combined with other parts, and you get the picture. An automobile (or mech) is a big machine that's made up of increasingly smaller groups of extemely well-engineered parts, and those tiny parts have to be maintained and cared for or else they'll fuck up the whole system, cascading outward. The general wear and tear of being in the physical plane makes is so that you Have to get in there and maintain and replace parts, but with such care that the delicate, graceful balance of engineering isn't lost. And once again, with enough knowledge, you can navigate this delicate landscape and make that machine do whatever you want.

The idea that these specialized things that are only supposed to be used Like So can then be adjusted to be able to do something else, only accomplished by having an intimate knowledge of what these parts and processes' limits are and how far you can push an individual component before damage is done, then lends itself very well to the idea that that intimate knowledge is no different than the love and care you could feel for a human being. After all, a human brain is a squishy, extemely complicated computer, and the human body is a squishy, very complicated piece of machinery. If you take out the squishy part (and hinestly sometimes you dont even need to do that) and scale it up so that someone can pilot it, thats a mech babey!

Anyway i hope this was coherent enough that I'll someday find something that scratches that itch, or maybe i'll write it myself. Just know that that's the fantasy im aiming for with the #robot fucker tag

[stefanelectric]

Low Voltage Relays Explained: Types, Functions, and Applications

In the complex world of electrical systems, relays play a crucial role in ensuring safety, efficiency, and automation. Among these, low voltage relays stand out as versatile components that manage and protect circuits operating below 1000 volts. Whether in industrial automation, residential power distribution, or commercial infrastructure, these devices act as the nerve center of electrical control and protection.

In this comprehensive guide, we will break down what low voltage relays are, explore their types, explain their functions, and highlight their diverse applications across industries.

What Are Low Voltage Relays?

A low voltage relay is an electrically operated switch that uses a small control voltage (typically below 1000V AC or DC) to switch larger electrical loads on and off. These relays act as intermediaries between control circuits and power circuits, providing isolation, control, and protection.

Unlike manual switches, relays automate the process of circuit management, responding to electrical signals, fault conditions, or system commands without human intervention.

Types of Low Voltage Relays

Low voltage relays come in several forms, each tailored to specific tasks within an electrical system. Here are the main types:

1. Electromechanical Relays (EMRs)

· Use a coil and a movable armature to open or close contacts.

· Provide physical isolation between input and output.

· Common in traditional control panels and basic automation.

2. Solid-State Relays (SSRs)

· Use semiconductors (like thyristors or triacs) instead of mechanical contacts.

· Offer silent operation, faster switching, and longer lifespan.

· Ideal for high-speed applications and environments requiring low maintenance.

3. Overload Relays

· Specifically designed to protect motors and equipment from sustained overcurrent.

· Available as thermal overload relays (using bimetallic strips) or electronic overload relays (using sensors and processors).

4. Time Delay Relays

Provide a deliberate time lag between the relay receiving a signal and switching.

Used in motor control circuits, lighting systems, and sequential operations.

5. Overcurrent and Short-Circuit Relays

· Detect and react to current exceeding preset thresholds.

· Essential for system protection against faults and overloads.

6. Voltage Monitoring Relays

· Monitor voltage levels and trip when voltages fall below or rise above safe limits.

· Protect sensitive devices from under voltage and overvoltage conditions.

Functions of Low Voltage Relays

Low voltage relays serve multiple vital functions in electrical systems:

1. Switching and Control

Relays control the opening and closing of power circuits in response to low voltage signals from controllers, timers, or sensors. This enables remote and automated control of large electrical loads.

2. Protection

Relays detect abnormal conditions like overloads, overcurrent, under voltage, and phase failures. When such conditions arise, they disconnect the affected circuit to prevent equipment damage or fire hazards.

3. Isolation

They electrically isolate control circuits (usually low voltage, low current) from power circuits (high voltage, high current), ensuring safety and reducing interference.

4. Signal Amplification

A small control signal (from a PLC, sensor, or microcontroller) can trigger a relay to switch much larger loads, effectively amplifying the control power.

5. Automation and Sequencing

In complex systems, relays help sequence operations by ensuring that processes occur in the correct order and at the right time intervals.

Applications of Low Voltage Relays

Low voltage relays are the backbone of automation and protection in various industries. Here are some key application areas:

Industrial Automation

· Control of motors, pumps, conveyor belts, and production lines.

· Use in programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and distributed control systems (DCS).

Power Distribution Systems

· Protect electrical panels from overload and short circuits.

· Monitor voltage and current levels in distribution boards.

Building Automation

· Lighting control systems.

· HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems.

· Elevator and escalator controls.

Renewable Energy Systems

· Manage and protect solar inverters, battery banks, and wind turbines.

· Automatically disconnect faulty sections to prevent system-wide failures.

Data Centers and IT Infrastructure

· Ensure stable power supply to servers and networking equipment.

· Protect sensitive electronics from voltage fluctuations.

Transportation

· Railways, metros, and automotive applications for control and safety circuits.

Home Appliances

· Found in washing machines, microwave ovens, and HVAC units to automate functions and provide protection.

Advantages of Using Low Voltage Relays

· Enhanced Safety: Isolate control and power circuits, reducing electrical shock risks.

· Automation Ready: Easily integrated into automated systems for smarter operation.

· Cost-Effective Protection: Safeguard expensive equipment from damage due to electrical faults.

· Versatile: Available in many forms to suit different voltage levels, currents, and response times.

· Reduced Maintenance: Especially with solid-state relays, which have no moving parts.

Future Trends: Smart Relays and IoT Integration

As industries move toward smart grids and Industry 4.0, low voltage relays are also evolving:

· Digital relays offer programmable settings, self-testing, and event recording.

· IoT-enabled relays can send status updates and alerts to centralized monitoring systems.

· Energy-efficient designs reduce power consumption while providing reliable protection.

Conclusion

Low voltage relays are indispensable in modern electrical engineering, seamlessly combining protection, control, and automation. From safeguarding your home appliances to managing the power in a sprawling industrial plant, these devices ensure that electrical systems run smoothly and safely.

Understanding the different types, functions, and applications of low voltage relays empowers system designers, engineers, and even DIY enthusiasts to build safer and more efficient electrical setups.

As technology advances, the role of these small but mighty devices will only grow, driving the future of safe, smart, and automated power systems.

[cerastes]

Hey how come you making flippant comments in regards to your own self-improvement fetish is so enlightening in regards to mental health things is this the whole 'professional' thing at work.

I would like to think so! When we think of "psychology", most people might have a very Freudian image of it: A therapist solemnly but very comprehensively taking notes as a patient lies on a couch and spills their guts, only interjecting once or twice in the hour-long session and then charging you. Psychoanalysis, the Freudian technique, I don't think it's useless, but it's definitely just one of a myriad of techniques and methods with which to carry out therapy (and one I myself am trained in and do not like). I myself am more of systems theory of psychology kind of guy (Humberto Maturana, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Gregory Bateson, among others), and systems has a very input-output sort of view (if you want to learn more, you can also look up second order cybernetics and radical constructivism).

Where I am going with all of this is that if it may seem like I'm making flippant comments, then that means I've synthetized my own self-care mind palace to such a degree that it has simply become part of my discourse, my lingo, my poise, if you will, but that in itself took a lot of introspective work in a way that was tangible to me, or in other words, in a way that my brain accepted it. Ultimately, it's the role of the psychologist to lead one to something rather than to reveal any sort of secret to wellness. Using myself as an example, as someone that had suicidal depression at one point, being told to "think positively" didn't do a damn thing, because if it was that easy, then depression wouldn't exist. Instead, I more or less had to trick my own brain into giving it reasons as to why it should think positively, because it makes sense to do so, and in the same vein, I had to give it reasons as to why thinking negatively was dumb. Because that sort of logic works with me. So it's less "hey, think nice things :)" and more "okay but does it have to be like this? Does everyone else have this crushing sadness as their normal as well? I don't think so, so maybe what I'm feeling isn't normal. Why am I thinking that way? What do they have that I don't? Oh, thing A and thing B, yeah, makes sense, and do I want these things? Mmm thing A doesn't really matter to me, but thing B, I'm loathe to admit, is something I desire, how about I work towards having thing B for now as a goal and then see if that is good enough or at least improves my mental state? Are things really as hopeless as I think they are and am I enlightened by my grim outlook? Probably not, so why am I hopeless and why are they not? There's something I don't have or don't know, let's see what that is, and put these shit thoughts on hold until I can ascertain these things". This is a summarized version, of course, but you know what I mean.

But where I'm going with this (again) is that once you grab onto your own internal logic (which is where the introspective work leads to!) and know what makes you click and how your own metrics and parameters of motivation work, it becomes much much easier to have a healthy mental state and keep it healthy. This, in my opinion, should be the long term objective of any good therapy: To at least start your user (I don't really use the term "patient") on this road. I'm making it sounds all sunshine and rainbows, but introspective work worth having does entail having to look at the uglier parts of yourself and acknowledging them, hence why not a lot of people see it through. It takes commitment and guts because you very much do reach a point where you need to look at these things that are awful and be like "yes, this, too, is me" before you can start going into how to turn these into advantageous things instead.

Likewise, the therapy I do tends to have this as goal: Let's work this shit together so we can organize it in a way that's easier to handle for starters, and then you can have a very good grip on the reins of what makes you feel good and what makes you feel bad, and so can easily dispel the brain fog by simply consulting your inner blueprint. Each user is a whole different journey, and it's part of what makes psychology such a beautiful field.

[solardaartistperson]

THIS HAS TO BE A COINCIDENCE, RIGHT???

(So basically i have a Sprunki OC named Mindy, who was first created in November last year, but a month LATER, GameToons uploaded a Sprunki Logic episode titled "SPRUNKI: CHARACTER CREATION!", and basically the thumbnail features Tunner, Durple, Gray, Sky, Oren, and Vineria in an Input chamber to fuse them, and THE CHARACTER IN THE OUTPUT CHAMBER JUST SO HAPPENS TO LOOK SORTA LIKE MINDY??? HELLO???)

Idk if I'm tweaking or not I LITERALLY NOTICED IT JUST RECENTLY 😭

[kuliak]

Minimalist, in the practical sense.

This is actually the first recording I made with the "synth voice" case since the great rearrangement of the end of last year. Yesterday I tried sitting down with it, but kept falling into tired modes of patching (which is to say, I was driving the entire patch with Marbles...)

Today, I used this case only, and patched it the way I really intend to - lots of logic, lots of cross modulation, and probably always using an external controller. Until I get a midi input module, that means 0-ctrl.

I saw some wigglers the other day talking about how well Marbles keeps track of external clocks and swing, so I tried it out, and they're right! 0-ctrl is playing with fairly significant time modulation and the 1st and 5th gates mixed together into Marbles running an x4 clock, which sort-of averages out 16th notes.

Past that point, it's hard to keep track of everything going on. Lots and lots of logic and modulation, controlling everything from sequences to "harmony" changes to transposition to sequence order to delay speed. Since a lot of things are left up to chance, sometimes modulations are in phase with each other in a way that makes things "ugly" - for a "proper" song, I'd of course fine tune these out, but this was a nice proof of concept for what I think is the least intuitive of my cases.

It is interesting though, something I wonder about here (that I likely won't have an answer for for a while) is whether I have the balance of modulation outputs and satisfying modulation destinations right. Nibblers will definitely help a lot for tangling those up. And honestly, it's not like everything needs to be patched at once.

The big questions at the forefront of my mind are: 1. Is inertia worth the space? I've tried it out both yesterday and today, but only got satisfying results as the most basic of things like basic slew or LPF. Would it be better ie permanently patched with Cold Mac for broader modulations, or is it worth keeping around at all? 2. As much as I love Erbe-Verb, does it have a home in this case? It does very interesting things under modulation, yes, but not necessarily things that I feel go well with the sound palette of this case. Perhaps I will end up swapping it with my Versio. I feel like Ruina would be great to modulate for constantly changing textures, or Electus or Melotus could create their own pretty textures and go into reverb territory. On the other hand, EV could leave (be set aside, I think I'd always want it on deck) for something else, perhaps Mimeophon or Silhouette if it sounds good when it's out in the world.

There's of course no right or wrong answer, modular is flexible and wonderful sounds can be made with any selection. But there is a right course of action: I should continue to spend time with this case and think critically about the selection. Some patches I'd like to try in the next week or so include using Inertia as an oscillator, using it as an expressive "main" envelope, and rhythmically modulating EV to create a texture/rhythm. Hopefully these things will all sound wonderful, but either way, they will lend useful perspective in setting/staying the course here.

[origami-trust]

magnus protocol DPHW meaning theorizing part 2: part 1 in brief: I agree with the theory that DPHW numbers are scores in the fields of Fear of Death, Pain, Helplessness, and the Weird. These score are true incident responses - as in, measuring the amount of fear present and generated in response to an incident. So let's talk category numbers and tiers. From the ARG, it seems that the same DPHW almost* always results in the same category number and tier. In ep 1, Alice says, "That’s the DPHW. So “dolls-comma-watching” is… 1157. Then you cross-reference with the table here, that would be a 2-C." So, if you can look up DPHW's in a table and see what categories and tiers they match, and they're usually the same, it seems logical the DPHW itself is being used to generate the Category number and Tier letter. I think category generation is based on two premises. 1. The output is a logical category/tier system to rank and identify incidents. 2. The input is needlessly and ridiculously bureaucratically complicated, as benefits the OIAR DPHW's are scored from 1 (low) to 9 (high) or 0, which I think may mean, rather than very low or very high: not able to be scored. The four numbers that are the DPHW are then put through a complicated series of internal calculations against each other and in combination, for additional hidden scores. e.g,: If Death is less than 5, calculate Helplessness+Weird for the Existential Dread score. (or Lonely) If both Death and Pain are above three, calculate D*P for the Bloodthirst score. (or Desolation) Pain+Helplessness = Savagery Score (or Hunt!) D+W= Public Noticeability score (or End) and so on, so forth, and some of these may correspond a little more to the Fears as we knew them, but they don't have to, it's its own system! All these numbers are then run through an internal calculation to output the category and rank! *We'll get into this next time.