This is an archive of past discussions with User:SteveBaker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I told you you were smart as hell about 3 years ago. I'm here to say it again. Well done on the reference desk good sir. --mboverload@03:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah - that was just beautiful! I'd like to think that Bugs set the trap deliberately - but that's hard to believe. Hopefully, this will put the whole sorry mess to bed for good. SteveBaker (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Question on Entertainment Desk that looks like it's calling for you
Hello. I'm not sure if you habitually read the Entertainment desk, but I saw a question that reminded me specifically of you. Not the main, top question here, but the one further down in the same section where someone asks (kind of) about the balance between frustration and challenge. I don't think they know that's what they're asking, but I know you gave an interesting answer once, somewhere, about all the careful tweaks that make a game fun.
Just wanted to thank you for your response on this topic, which I didn't see at the time. I always forget to re-check old topics, but I went to search for it today and saw your response, so...thanks! Vimescarrot (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You recommended this book over at the ref desks. I borrowed it from the library. Good suggestion; much better than Flatland, I agree, though I would recommend Ian Stewart's Flatterland being decent, too. Aaronite (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a copy of Flatterland too - but I don't generally recommend it because I think Planiverse is better. I just love looking at the pictures of 2D machinery, houses, etc and trying to figure out how they work and how 2D people would actually be able to construct them. SteveBaker (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Moog clone again and again...
I just ran into this archive and wondered, just how many people are doing the same thing all over again? Oh well... I'm sort-of-done with prototyping my own voice board with three AVRs (sort of... it does not crash every minute) and now I'm stuck with interfacing the voice board(s) with a keyboard.
A monophonic link looks quite easy: wire together a chain of resistors and feed it into a (digital) VCO like they did fifty years ago. Now I'm stuck making the next step: from a single V to a set of polyphonic V's. A microcontroller has only one 16-bit PWM output. It can feed I2C code to many daughterboards, but this rules out tampering with analog control-V (pitch wheel, vibrato etc.). So I really want it to be analog - probably with an AVR in the center, but with a bunch of analog outputs. Could you recommend an economical way of marrying an AVR to many analog outputs?
I'm not really interested in doing anything in analog - I want something that's pure digital...and in fact, pure software - that emulates an old-school analog synth's controls and synthesis methods but without all of the temperature and power supply stability issues of a true analog synth. I loved my old Sonic Six - but the darned thing was a pain to play because as the room filled with audience and all of the other equipment started belting out heat, it would start to drift out of tune...it was really difficult to work with for more than a short time.
The Arduino has six PWM outputs. However, there is a trade-off between number of bits and maximum frequency - which is limited by the clock speed of the chip. If you insist on 16 bit pulse-width precision, you wind up with a really poor top frequency...you can get higher frequencies - but at the cost of pulse-width precision. I didn't find a sweet spot in that relationship that got me clean audio. This is actually what put paid to my hopes of making a nice synthesiser using software and a $5 Atmel controller. However, they are starting to come out with versions with higher clock rates - so perhaps it'll soon be possible. If 6 analog outputs isn't enough - the chip only costs $5 - so use two or more of them and have them talk to each other to stay in sync.
Ah! thanks a bunch for the tip. See, I did it without any third-party boards - but this also means that the choice limited to DIP-40 chips which only have one or two 16-bit counters. The Arduino board with six PWMs solves it all. East of Borschov18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that your absence at the desks is hard to miss, and I hope you haven't been driven away by apostrophists. Either way, I hope you return when you feel like it. ---Sluzzelintalk18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you haven't completely retired from the project at large, and we hope to have your contributions on the Science Desk again whenever you feel your break's been long enough. Nimur (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. I took a quick look at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk last night...geez! Whatever happened to our friendly, mutually supportive & professional team? This may be a L-O-N-G break! Between the wacko's, the trolls, the jokers, the wikilawyers and the grammar nazi's...do we actually care about supporting our users anymore? SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do; and while the wackos and trolls can seem unbearable at times, it's important that we ignore them so we can focus on providing quality answers to those on the desk who legitimately benefit from our efforts. We may never know which questions/answers make an important difference, and which are mindless drivel to pass the time for bored kids on the internet; but we answer every question with a high-quality response so that the ones that matter don't get passed over. Nimur (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(I can't believe it's an e/c! :) That team is still there, beavering away. For as long as I can remember (only 3 years at the Desks) these things have happened, perhaps in waves. It's the nature of any open system that disruption can be visited upon it at will. The Desks seem to have an attraction in that they fall a bit outside of the "normal" Wikipedia rules by allowing more freedom of action and expression of individual opinion than the article and policy processes. Partly that's because Deskers by and large really are very tolerant and thoughtful people - so there's a bit of a loophole for incoming editors to try to force things around to their own particular interpretation while everyone bends over backward to be polite and hash out the issues. There's always been the "let's answer everything" crowd, the "I personally will answer every thread whether or not I have a clue" crowd, the "no policy specifically says I can't do it, therefore it is mandatory" crowd - and always will be. In a way that's good, it keeps the dedicated Deskers from getting too insular and keeps them on top of their own governance. I can think of at least one example of an admin wading in who didn't have "Desk cred" and getting the snot kicked out of him. :)
So yeah, relax Steve, this too shall pass. Come back whenever you want - but I really do hope you'll be back. I believe I began contributing to the Desks when you were on a previous break. Not exactly sure on the timing but I do remember being very pleased with my efforts, then all of a sudden this editor showed up giving full essay answers, comprehensive, sourced, with perfect logical progression, addressing every point in order. It was rather a deflating experience - if I was a different sort of person I might have taken a run at you myself, trying to pick away at whatever faults I could find. Instead I just started reading your answers. You do have some rough edges, for sure, some of which you acknowledge. It's a personal challenge for each of us to recognize and smooth out those pointy elbows, which never ends whilst we draw breath. There's no doubt at all that you are a huge net positive at the Desks though - so come back whenever you feel like it! Regards. Franamax (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's OK for people to miss me - it's when they hit that I get concerned! :-)
Anyway - I'm keeping busy. Aside from a little light WikiGnoming, I entered this and consequently, I'm up to my neck in JavaScript, WebGL and cowboys! I had the idea to build an IRC chatroom that is a fully playable 3D Wild West bar - complete with honkytonk piano player and dancing girls. When someone says something that annoys you, you can throw beer in their face...and if that doesn't work, smash them over the head with a chair! (At which point, the laws of 1950's Hollywood westerns will presumably kick in and a cliche bar-fight will immediately ensue.) This is a clear improvement over Godwin's Law. I figure that when it's done, we can use it for WT:RD and we can all argue about whether smashing someone over the head with a bottle constitutes a violation of WP:NPA! SteveBaker (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I do not agree with everything you say, your format is definitely better than some other refdeskers. In case you are worrying, I have drastically reduced my presence there. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang terms. This article provides unsourced definitions of this term and nothing else. Has been an unsourced stub for over four years.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
And I suggest you re-evaluate your deletions, as Tasty Planet-Back For Seconds is directly related to grey goo, top-down perspective, and turtles all the way down, and there's no good reason at all for you reverting those edits. Furthermore, in none of the instances did you give an edit reason for removing them, further invalidating your undoings.Kevin (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I have no commerical interest in Tasty Planet, and your suggestion of conflict of interest is baseless. Further, I'm not "instering refrences everywhere", only where it's relevant, namely, the three afforementioned pages. Otherwise, I'd be going around putting links to the webpage on ants and lasers of all things.
Aside from using the phrase "Grey goo" - tasty planet has nothing remotely related to grey goo in it. Grey goo is unlikely ever to be circular - to have eyes - or to run around agressively attacking things and solving puzzles. If such a phenomenon were ever to occur, it would likely spread through the world in an irregular blob that would consume everything including the ground beneath. The issue here is that when you add a link to subject "A" into article "B", the goal is not to improve the coverage of A but to increase the clarity and understanding of B. Hence adding Tasty Planet's wildly incorrect interpretation of grey goo into that article not only doesn't add to people's comprehension of grey goo - but rather massively subtracts from it. Similar arguments apply to the other links you added. I can't tell whether you have a COI here (although it's certainly suspicious) - but for sure it's wildly inappropriate to go around 'tagging' other articles with references that they don't need. By all means (if it's relevant) link to grey goo, top-down perspective and turtles all the way down from within the Tasty Planet article - but the reverse is highly inappropriate. Hence I stand by my reversions. SteveBaker (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
...and now that I check, I see that your inappropriate re-insertion of this material has been removed from all three articles by other editors...so it looks like other people who are more familiar with those articles agree with me. Please don't start a revert war - you are clearly in the wrong here. SteveBaker (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I agree with you, but I will concede that you may have a point. More importantly, at least two other people agree, and though top-down perspective has been reverted with no reason given, the other two were reverted with valid concerns. If I have any further concerns about Tasty Planet's inclusion, I'll take it up with the most recent revisers.Kevin (talk)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Number cruncher, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
