Have you successfully configured the ADC on this chip model before? I've been through the ADC docs for the PIC32MX/MZ many times and they're quite dense. It would be very easy to miss some required configuration bits.
In my experience, it's never a problem with the hardware itself, but you never know. I spent 3 weeks last summer debugging a problem with the MRF24WG0MA, and was almost convinced the chip was defective, until I realized that Harmony configured a few things incorrectly (the interrupt polarity being one of them). But yeah, for a show stopper issue that I'm not making any progress with, I would just get in contact with the manufacturer.
I don't think it's a problem with the hardware either, I'm just acknowledging it's physically possible.
No, I've never even worked with a microchip at all before. I do front-end web development normally. I am actively combing through the ADC section repeatedly, yes, to no avail so far.
I know how you feel. Dealing with hardware issues can be _extremely_ frustrating. It's very easy to dig yourself in a hole wherein you stop thinking clearly. In this situation, if you haven't completely given up on it yet, maybe take a day or two off and work on something else? I find that helps. Otherwise I would contact the manufacturer or post to their forums.
Feel free to email me if you want a second pair of eyes. sean at [myusername].com
Isn't trickle down economics supposed to redistribute portions of that wealth? If you agree that trickle down isn't working because the elite are capturing it for themselves, then you could conclude that them being rich is a contributing factor to these people being poor. No?
As I understand it, the 'trickle' comes in the form of, for example, cheaper food. Which, as a percentage of income, is something that we can see has actually happened. The remainder can be used to capture a portion of the wealth.
The problem comes in actually using that money to capture wealth instead of increasing your expenses elsewhere. The latter of which is very easy to do.
I guess I'd prefer to see this in wages and similar. Rather than increasing wages with respect to inflation, they've stagnated, and profits for companies, shareholders, and owners are much higher.
> The problem comes in actually using that money to capture wealth instead of increasing your expenses elsewhere. The latter of which is very easy to do.
Absolutely. I think this is where the idea of trickle down economics fails. It assumes that mo' money mo' expenses. I guess there's only so much you can buy with 80 Billion before that assumption breaks down.
> Rather than increasing wages with respect to inflation, they've stagnated
The data doesn't support this[1]. Wages are stagnant, but only with respect to inflation. Wages are increasing at rate of inflation, more or less.
> Absolutely. I think this is where the idea of trickle down economics fails.
For argument's sake, let's say that the 'trickle' has lead to food being $100/month cheaper. Do you put $100/month you have gained into the stock market, with average returns of 7%, or do you go and sign up for a smartphone plan?
If, assuming you are young, you choose the former, you will have an average wealth of ~$250,000 by the time you retire, which will then provide ~$18K per year recurring income to retire on. If you choose the latter, you will have ~$0 of wealth when you retire and no income.
The choice seems fairly obvious, but something tells me that most (myself included) would choose the smartphone phone plan instead. In reality, you are taking the wealth you have gained (~$250K) and are spending it on a service that you wanted to have instead (a smartphone).
So, I agree, that doesn't work. People have shown that they are willing to spend the gains they have made. But if we found a different way to funnel $250K onto the balance sheet, would that actually stop them from spending it? Or would they still find some way to turn that $250K of wealth into a smartphone (or whatever consumable someone wants to enjoy) and be no further ahead?
> Wages are stagnant, but only with respect to inflation.
True, but at the same time, productivity (value produced per working hour) in the US has more than doubled in 30 years. [1] I consider this unfair: Workers should benefit from increased productivity as much as shareholders do.
> Workers should benefit from increased productivity as much as shareholders do.
I mean, they do. The price of goods comes down. This is quite visible. Food, for example, went from 25% of income in the 1940s to less than 10% today as wealth concentrated among fewer and fewer farmers. If that wealth remained distributed, leaving every American still trying to run a small patch of land like they did in the 1940s, it would be highly inefficient and the price of food wouldn't have been able to decline.
But, okay, imagine (to stay with the previous comment's example) that the price of food remained the same and your income went up by $100/month instead. Your profit is still the same. Are you really any further ahead? Is having $100 clearly in your hand more apt to have you put it into the stock market, or similar, to captures wealth? Or are you still going to go out and spend that on a smartphone plan, or similar consumable, leaving no wealth to show for it?
You keep bringing up food. What of housing or healthcare? The costs there have risen dramatically at rates many times higher than inflation. Inflation adjusted the poverty line keeps rising while wages stay flat. I don't see how this is a sustainable system.
To be honest, I'm not sure we have actually seen a concentration of wealth in housing. The homeownership rate is almost at the highest point in history (it definitely was in 2008), which means that said wealth is spread thinner than ever. Further, construction of homes is still quite accessible to small business, so we haven't even seen concentration of wealth into construction to see lowering prices there.
We might even go as far as to say housing perfectly demonstrates what happens when you don't get the trickle down effect. Granted, those rising housing prices are not all bad as you can make money from the gains on the property and the construction of. This is the system you want to have everywhere, right?
But housing is also interesting because people have changed where they want to live. In the 1940s, ~50% of the population lived in the middle of nowhere. Today, ~20%. Now, people are willingly taking the $100/month they saved on food (just to stick with the example) and are applying it to the rent in the big city so that they can have the opportunity to live there. If they were happy with 1940s-style living, and opted for a home in the middle of nowhere, they would be able to retain that $100/month and capture wealth with it. Like the smartphone, this is consumer choice to give up the wealth to get more (to live in the city).
As far as healthcare goes, I'm inclined to agree that wealth has been more apt to concentrated there. But like people choosing to pay more to be in the city, people are choosing to pay more to have state of the art healthcare. Would you really want to go back to 1940s style healthcare at a lower cost? I'm not convinced I would, even if it helps my balance sheet. The gains are still there, but utilized instead of being stashed away into wealth.
My guess is that it's the former. In general, women are attracted to masculinity (assuming heterosexuality), a factor in which testosterone plays a large part.
Let them be attracted. Serves reproduction all right. Hence your evolutionary argument. But the study is about long-term relationships. I'd think social factors, cultural habits, and reflection play an important part there. It's not clear to me, that it's necessarily the former.
I have noticed this exact same behavior in one of my friends. It is indeed annoying as fuck. It's impossible to have any kind of intellectual conversation with him. When he claims to know why something is the way it is, and then I question him about it, and he just changes the subject, or uses some kind of blanket statement and walks away.
It's not about the actual radiation, that's easy to deal with. It's about the containers cracking or leaking and having that stuff floating around in the ocean, contaminating our food and the environment. Even the strongest container we can make is still susceptible to the corrosive effects of the ocean.
If you're going to bury it in the ocean, your best bet would be to bury it near a subduction zone. But then you have the earth itself possibly being the cause of the container cracks and leaks.
Fitness and nutrition are those kinds of topics that no one ever agrees on. Everyone thinks their way is the "right" way, as exemplified by the enormous number of unique replies to this thread. This could be attributed to the ignorance of the commenters, or that everyone just finds different things work for them. It is probably a combination of both, with an emphasis on the former.
Unique replies? Sure, there are some, but reading through them I'm seeing the following themes over and over and over:
* Exercise more (mostly walking more/treadmill desk, weightlifting, and biking).
* Eat better food (less sugar/carbs, more, veggies, and less red meat)
* Get enough [quality] sleep.
* Get an active hobby. (Wide range of suggestions, but no one saying "this is the one true hobby"--just, "find one you enjoy--I like this one.")
Not only are they repeated here again and again, they're so widely agreed upon that I think most people would have been able to accurately guess that they'd be the most common responses.
The two main benefits here that people are giving specific methods to try (we all know we should exercise, but here are people listing ways of doing so that fits their desk-job lifestyles), and they're inspiring us to try a few of these things. (e.g., I've long know I needed to improve my sleep, and people here have inspired me to put more effort into ensuring my sleep is uninterrupted.)
The original question is "what are you doing" and people are giving their personal responses. Almost none of them are saying their way is the right way for everyone. I don't think you can blame the ignorance of the commenters for anything here.
I like that the power cleans add explosiveness to the program. All the other lifts are slow (at least when I do them) and the power cleans make the program a bit more versatile.
I do try to keep lifts explosive as I can, though I can already feel how hard that will be as weight keeps growing.
I think the olympic lifts are really cool, but I feel it'd take significant motive to go off program and include them at least until I top out on 5x5s.
I decided to verify that I am not making things up ;)
Starting Strength, 2nd edition:
- There is a whole section on barbell rows in the "Useful Assistance Exercises" chapter. See page 263.
- Barbell row substitution is mentioned in the "Programming" chapter. Page 289, start of 5th paragraph: "People without access to bumper plates may choose to use the barbell row instead of the power clean. This is not a terrible substitution, but be aware of what you're giving up if you do..."
