For approximative simulation, any SPICE simulator works. You'll need to know your capacitors parasitics and power supply output impedance, find a typical via's impedance, and manually compute traces impedances and board capacitance.
For accurate simulation, the actual board geometry needs to be fed to a simulator that'll compute the actual impedances. Last I checked only Very Expensive Software could do that in a user-friendly way (I had to route a DDR3 bus. I ended up being very cautious so that all traces had the same topology and the same lengths, and cross my fingers. It worked).
If anyone knows of free alternatives for that, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Hydrophonic farming at home. You can play with sensors (acidity, humidity etc), LED lighting (frequencies, intensity, etc), vision processing (maybe throw in some AI buzzword here) to keep track of your plants and do some decision making.
The increased speed hydroponic plants grow at compared to plants in soil is what really makes it exciting for me. A plant in my basic countertop "indoor garden" unit is growing 10x as fast as a cutting of the same plant sitting in my windowsill.
Trump ensured that there is absolutely no reason for any nation, not just Iran, to believe what USA says in the future. No agreements/treaties with the USA can be trusted. And not just with Trump administration, since he demonstrated clearly that he can tear any treaty/agreement that was made under different administrations as well. The United States demonstrated that it has very, very limited control over the actions of an elected president.
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.
Seems like Germany is having this problem for the past 20 years... but here we are. Maybe accept the fact that they are a manufacturing powerhouse and will remain so in the foreseeable future?
Isn't this a strange way to put Toyota to be "closer" to Tesla by "enterprise value"? I mean, if toyota had 1T USD debt, it's enterprise value would have been 1.25T, and it would have been more "valuable" than Tesla. But, how is that "better", if you want to invest in a company?
I'm surprised TSLA is in such a good shape, debt-wise.
A way to look at it is that "even though it has x debt, it's still worth y". For instance, imagine you have a choice between two sports players. One is currently sick and scores at one goal a game. The other is in great health and scores at one goal a game. Which player do you pick?
Though of course he mentions it differently: how much would you have to pay to acquire all of the surplus from the company? You'd have to buy the company and it's debt.
Somewhere towards the bottom, the post explains that "the price to buy the business and gain all its economic value is the enterprise value." So if you want to buy Toyota, and reap all of the profits, you buy all of the stock and all of its debt. Toyota and GM become much more expensive this way.
> I'm surprised TSLA is in such a good shape, debt-wise.
As the post also notes, "a high share price relative to your true value constitutes the ability to finance cheaply."
If Toyota had 1T debt and kept its its current market value then it would have to be doing much better then it is. If it could not afford the debt it would be priced in.
Companies with enterprise values higher then thier market values are not better investments.
I think what you're missing is that lenders don't lend blindly. They expect to be paid back. Just as an investor expects to recoup their investment. Buying a bond (i.e. a loan to a company) is as much of an investment strategy as buying a share. Bonds come with less risk and limited reward, shares the opposite.
From the company's perspective, it has a queue of claimants who expect to be paid and the company will pay them with its profits. The queue order is roughly determined by whether the claimant holds a bond or a share (and further determined by legalities and complications within those two broad classifications. It's complicated™).
If you could walk up to anyone in the queue and ask to take their place in line, in exchange for cash, "enterprise value" is an estimate of how much it would cost to buy everyone's place in line. Or, the sum of how much everyone in line values their place in that line.
Thus, in this metaphor, Toyota could decide to sell new places in line to finance the construction of a $1T factory. But, only if people believe the factory will actually produce > $1T in new value.
Exactly, I argue here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39754171) that "market cap" is probably better than this strange "enterprise value" for the stated goals of the formula, which is to compare how valuable companies are in an intuitive way for your average person.
My point being that the market cap already includes (partially) the debt and cash priced in, while this whole debt is positive, cash is negative is "if you wanted to buy the company". We do not use "country debt" to measure how "valuable" a country is, we use GDP for a reason.
> But, how is that "better", if you want to invest in a company?
This is exactly out of the scope of the article. So if the question is what you should invest in this is probably not a good metric.
The question the article answers is how to most efficiently finance your own company. It would seem like Tesla has financed selling its own stock, indicating that they think they are overvalued, where Toyota has financed selling their own bonds, indicating that they think they are undervalued.
If you trust their own assessments and want a good deal, then you should probably invest in Toyota over Tesla.
Sanctions by countries who developed a certain technology, appear to always result in the country which was sanctioned to develop that technology in some timeframe, depending on the complexity.
Was there any case of a "successful" sanction in history? Or is holding back a country for a few years (or decades depending on the tech) considered a success?
There are a fair few books ("Chip War") on this topic that make the case the US was relatively successful at keeping some critical advanced semi-conductor tech out of China and other less agreeable States for decades between the 70s and early 2000s. The commonly cited examples are America's "smart" weapons/bombs etc having a significant edge for a long time, see the ease with which US warplanes took out huge swaths of Iraqi infrastructure in Gulf War 1 in the early 90s, again largely thanks to superior precision weapons and stealth etc, which in many cases were the products of superior semi-conductor technologies.
"Chip War" to some extent makes the argument it's in the more recent times we've seen US legislators lack of maintaining as much interest in export controls that has lead to the erosion of this advantage, not that controls don't work at all per se.
The export controls work in some cases not because the facts or design of the tech is unknown; the issue is that many cutting edge technologies need an entire complex ecosystem of businesses, people, production and supply lines to be present to work too - it's often this part that becomes very hard to simply replicate - see Taiwan's huge lead in chip manufacturing despite being in a hugely politically unstable geographic location. It's taking the USA decades to try and bring that kind of manufacturing capability at the cutting edge back to the US, and the US still can't compete with the scale Taiwan can produce the latest chips at.
I have a theory: If a country has an IQ of 95 or above, sanctions would likely prove ineffective in halting the acquisition of specific technologies within such a society.
