• qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    Experimentalists: understood, say no more.

    Theorists: ok, show me the Hamiltonian…including the noise terms.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    Sources of error: psychosomatic popping noise interfered with measurements when viewing image

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    Nah… It’s just that “usually calculations overestimate the experimental values”.

  • fckreddit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    Where was the experiment run? On a battlefield?

    • Droechai@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      Setting up a bird listening device a few meters off an active runway and no filter for engine sounds.

      Play back is of course volume tuned for the bird chirps when processing data

  • Nooodel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago
    • Hey boss, we have sincere troubles, SNR is off by too much.
    • how much?
    • 20dB
    • ah, then we’re good, that’s so ridiculous it’s def. a gain problem in your measurement setup
  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The funny thing about RF work is how casually a few orders of magnitudes gets thrown around. 10 dB fudge factors for assorted losses are quite common.