True, but “normal schedule” is hiding a bit of subtlety there: the hpv vaccine was recommended for women up to 26 at the time, so the oldest women who got it then would be pushing 50 now.
Not sure if there's something more recent than this, but it was about 15.5% of adults aged 27-45.
It also notes this:
"Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is the leading sexually transmitted infection in the United States, and 85% of sexually active individuals will be infected at some point in their lifetime"
So, if you're not vaccinated and have had multiple sexual partners, it is rather likely you have or have had HPV.
There are many strains, though, and the vaccine provides coverage against a few of the most harmful, so it's still probably worth getting even if you may have been exposed to a subset of strains.
It annoys me too but part numbers are not a spec but more of a strong hint. The attitude of the industry is that it’s up to you to read data sheets carefully and test. Even for a 2N2222 or whatever.
Keeping in mind, though, that this is a jellybean part. You're supposed to be able to order "a" 5532 without specifying the supplier, because many vendors produce "a" 5532, and they're all the same. Different vendors' 5532s are supposed to be able to be treated as the same SKU — literally dumped into co-mingled stock in warehouses — with no ill consequence!
(And yes, until TI's recent move, that was true of the 5532. All the other vendors' 5532s had matching datasheet specs, including the 22V max input voltage. Because a design that was built for "a" 5532 was usually built to run it up to 100%; and that a vendor couldn't offer their part as a swap-in if it couldn't do that.)
But now, if your purchasing department (or the supplier they purchase from) happens to order TI 5532s — or if the warehouse they're sourcing from has comingled any TI 5532s into the general 5532 stock — then your product is now broken, with no real recourse except to change your entirely supply chain to one that specifically excludes TI.
The EEVBlog[1] video about this has a nice example of only a single chinese manufacturer offering the same stuff as TI now does, even with the same PNP instead of NPN topology. All the others are comparable to the original.
> Different vendors' 5532s are supposed to be able to be treated as the same SKU — literally dumped into co-mingled stock in warehouses — with no ill consequence!
That may be true for a small webshop or a brick-and-mortar electronics store (what few of those still exist). Or be true for end users / manufacturers of equipment that includes such a part.
But (afaik) that's not how it works for large reputable distributors like Mouser, Digikey & co. You don't order a generic "5532" there, you order a 5532 from <specified manucturer> there. Part from manufacturer A may, or may not be interchangeable with same-numbered part from manufacturer B. There's even some parts that have same # but very different function between manufacturers. In other words: buyers, designers do your homework.
Likewise in a design, if you specify "5532" that should read as "any manufacturer's 5532 should do". If not (or unsure / untested), one should specify the part including its manufacturer. Or a list of acceptable manufacturer/part# combo's.
Ofcourse changing the spec significantly for a jellybean part like discussed here (and one with many 2nd sources), that's just evil. Change a part like that, give it its own part #.
>You're supposed to be able to order "a" 5532 without specifying the supplier
This is not true.
>because many vendors produce "a" 5532
This is true, in the sense of a "5532-type part". But you will note that all the 5532 variants have different manufacturer's part numbers (prefixes and suffixes) to prevent this confusion. They don't just do that for branding.
>and they're all the same.
This is emphatically and trivially not true, and it tells me you haven't done the work of carefully comparing data sheet specs across suppliers. Try it, you'll learn something.
>Different vendors' 5532s are supposed to be able to be treated as the same SKU — literally dumped into co-mingled stock in warehouses — with no ill consequence!
That might happen somewhere, but authorized distributors do not do this and volume manufacturers do not do this. You might have an internal part number with an authorized suppliers list that includes more than one variant of 5532 that has been vetted for production.
>And yes, until TI's recent move, that was true of the 5532. All the other vendors' 5532s had matching datasheet specs
Again, emphatically and trivially not true. Take a careful look at the NJM and On Semi data sheets. Spec by spec. Do the work and be amazed.
>the warehouse they're sourcing from has comingled any TI 5532s into the general 5532 stock
Authorized distributors do not do this. It gets hairy when you're sourcing NOS from grey market dealers for old designs or in severe part crunches like 2020-2022 era, but that's a different story.
>no real recourse except to change your entirely supply chain to one that specifically excludes TI
This concept is backwards. You would have an internal part number for 5532-type op amp, and it would have an authorized vendors list that would only include vetted parts. "Any 5532 but TI" is asking for trouble from someone else.
And parts do change or get updated and if you are buying from authorized distributors for production you and your supply chain and quality people will get product change notices. At that point it's your job (or the component engineer's, if you're fortunate enough to have one) to validate the new version or find a suitable alternate.
It has worked this way since the days of the vacuum tube, so there probably is some legal precedence somewhere. I think part of this with the NE5532 is just that these days most EEs spend most of their time with digital where the data sheet and its spec is absolute; in the linear world the spec sheet is an ideal and an average because the parts themselves are an ideal and the real world never lines up with the math. Back when the NE5532 came out it was still common to see power supplies that were unregulated or barely regulated or cheap regulators with poor tolerance that would vary a fair amount with wall voltage and massive tolerances on passives, data sheets and EEs took this into account, most parts would survive max voltage but there would be a higher failure rate, so run at 70% or 80% and you don't have to worry about it.
In these days of cheap SMPS and EEs that are trained with a strong lean towards digital and much improved IC fab, the max seems to be treated as the max safe voltage for good reliability and life, and you don't have to worry much about the tolerances of everything else so much. Back in the 90s when I was learning this stuff, the old EEs scolded me when ever I ran at max voltage and would patiently explain it all to me and that even if it can operate at that voltage, you can't be certain your PS will still be putting out that voltage in a year, parts drift as they age and accidents happen and the world is not ideal. They were right.
They’re just not really standardized at all, especially semiconductors. Not in the sense you’d expect naively. Some were a long time ago, and supposedly the old Japanese sc parts were, down to die geometry and process. But otherwise, the part number means “this is like the part with a similar number first made by someone else”, not “this is an exact replacement in every way”
Specs are just that... specs. A 7400 is one thing, but if you designed a circuit that barely avoids oscillating with a 10 MHz GBW, an unsolicited "upgrade" to the opamp that raises its GBW to 12 MHz may be more of a disaster than a favor.
Frankly it's not OK to "upgrade" plain old TTL parts, either, since a faster 7400 might expose a race condition that never caused problems before, or cause EMI problems that didn't exist before.
This is why you should always order new parts for a new design and never, never trust the old guy with the magic parts box. Also why learning to read and compare data sheets skeptically is a fundamental skill.
No, I’m talking about the guy that builds prototypes out of his magic parts box and says “oh, you can still get those” when the last direct substitute was obsoleted in 2008. Or he’s using the old version of a part like this in a “proven” subcircuit and NOT checking for change notices or other the new data sheets. That’s what I mean by the “magic parts box”. Buy new parts for new prototypes and read all the latest data, folks.
There is a C.S. Lewis quote that is as good as St. Paul and I don’t say that lightly: “There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.”
Hard, isn’t it? The highest ideals are.
The clankers are just very big machine spirits. Treat them as such.
When I put together my telescope setup I got a manual equatorial thinking I’d add a clock drive and my next telescope would have a go-to mount. It’s been about 20 years now.
J is unclear on the concept, it's a hack to port APL to ASCII. I'm typing on a ZMK keyboard now where an APL unicode layer would be trivial. There are modern APLs. One can code a iOS keyboard with AI help.
While a native APL would be nice, the cloud solution would be robust access to a professional product. Build the chain via existing tools to bridge the iPad to APL running on a desktop machine.
I looked into this recently; but I've decided on Lean 4 as the successor "best language in existence" for my needs.
I got a VIC-20 when I was about 12? Jim Butterfield loomed impossibly large over all things Commodore at that time. One of the first things I typed in on it was his TINYMON, a <1kbyte “monitor” (for some reason resident debuggers were frequently called monitors in early microcomputing) before I had any idea what it was.
I didn't realize he was Canadian - as a child I got so much mileage out of Machine Language for the Commodore 64[0]. I used to think of my program, get out sheets of graph paper and flip through a table of opcodes I wanted to use, get their decimal rep, and write out the list of numbers in a long column, then go to my computer and POKE them into place and watch a spite come to life, or the screen change colour. So much fun had with that book.
Debuggers were people pulling bugs out of walls of vacuum tubes. They monitored and literally debugged a computer. Monitor made more sense at first, they monitored for bugs.
The "monitor" term is not from early microcomputing but from early computing. I believe that "monitor" referring to a display monitor, and referring to a machine language debugger all have the same origin: they date back to directly monitoring the electrical signals from equipment to observe its workings. The use of "monitoring" in profiling (e.g. gprof and its gmon.out file, etc) is also the same.
Yes; mixing consoles have monitor buses. One way to use monitor speakers is to put them on the monitor bus output. Then any mixer channel that is bridged to the monitor bus (with a dedicated switch, like a push button toggle) is then monitored.
Yeah I was thinking that. Also at some point you will be switching motherboards every other cpu update just due to the socket changes between generations.
They are ok, put them into production for around 250units. Was very excited about them, but plugging and unplugging is not as graceful, and sometimes you stab yourself with their sharp pins.
I'm going back to mounting a usb-c connector on the pcb me thinks.
reply