Hardkernel used to be one of the #1 purveyors of Samsung Exynos development boards (The other being Insignal). Unfortunately, both Insignal and Hardkernel's BSPs for Exynos boards tended to be vastly outdated. (Hardkernel was even violating the GPL with some of their Android 4.2 releases for some of the Exynos 4412 boards for a while - putting up binary images with no source code in sight.)

Now even Hardkernel is putting effort into non-Haxxinos boards...

At which point it's a physical (and psychological) game; at least if you are doing it right. :)

If there was ever a time for an "all of the above" this was the time. I pretty much play most of those varieties (Card, Board, Video, Pen & Paper and Physical games).

Largely because of the first-sale doctrine, which codifies property rights sanity: if you sell me something, it is now mine, not yours. I can do whatever I want with it. Use my spatula as a screwdriver? Use a thermos bottle for a hammer? Watch scenes in a movie out of order? It's none of your business. I bought it. It is now my property, and I'm free to do with it as I please.

(Averting pedantry: of course that doesn't involve violating copyright. Straw men will be ignored.)

You are wrong.

One word: Chromebook

What's with the "photo" of the 2nd stage / capsule separation? It looks distinctly like a 3D render, not an actual photo. Or if it is a real photo, how did they get it?

Hell yeah, I'll admit that I am King of the Geeks. Talk nerdy to me.

OK, OK. I'll double-check with a calculator that's not "bc" before publishing. I've done enough physics work, though, to trust that 1) calculations showing explicit conversions are almost always correct, and 2) calculations that don't almost never are.

Like when Bell Labs developed C to write Unix? There's a long tradition of major companies coming up with new languages to scratch an itch. Thank God is hasn't died. How boring to live in a time when we'd decided that there was nothing left to innovate?

Yes. A proper root cause analysis is important here.

Is electronics the actual root cause? I suspect not. Most of the issues the OP describes are pretty typical examples of stress/burnout.

For nontrivial math, I don't always trust Google's interpretation of the question to be the same as mine. That page is a little short on details of what it's actually doing. On the other hand, WolframAlpha is really good about showing its work. I just always forget that it's there.

In either case, yeah, I like doing it the hard way. Or as I call it, "learning" or "practicing".

Moore's law describes the number of transistors in a package, not linearly their size. Doubling the number of transistors means that each one has to be 1/sqrt(2) as big as the old version, and that to-the-11th would be about 1/45th as large, not 1/2048th. That's still pretty dinky.

We think it's great because, among other things, it has first-class functions and a very high code:boilerplate ratio. This lets us write very concise, readable, and maintainable code.

Eww, no. I've never seen good Python code that asserts types because it's not the idiom for you to care. For instance, suppose you write a function like:

def get_contents_of(obj): return obj.read()

In this case, obj might be a file, or a web request, or a string (via the StringIO interface). Who knows? Who cares? As long as obj.read returns something, it works. BTW, this is supremely nice for unit testing when you don't really want to hit an SQL server 1,000 times in a tight loop.

Now, you could write something like assert isinstance(obj, file) to guarantee that you're only dealing with file objects. Of course, that lays waste to the whole concept of duck typing and people will laugh at you for doing it. So dropping that bad idea, you could write assert hasattr(obj, 'read') to ensure that the object has the needed methods. But why? Python gives you that check for free when you try to call the method. Let it do the heavy lifting and concentrate on the parts of the problem you actually care about.

Yeah, that would be terrible. You almost never use them in Python like that, partially because Python tends to have a vastly shallower call stack than, say, Java (largely because you don't need 10 layers of abstraction between bits of code thanks to the duck typing we just talked about).

I think it boils down to you not knowing idiomatic Python. That's OK. I'm ignorant about lots of things, too. But I think you'd find that you enjoy it more if you stop trying to write C or Java in Python, because that almost never works out well.