One could go farther and complain that it's a waste of a microcontroller at all to control a fan when an analog circuit for fan speed vs temperature would work fine.
True, a very simple analog circuit would be enough.
However the bane of analog circuits was that they age, so a control circuit that works perfectly today will drift and no longer work as intended after some years.
The second problem is that analog circuits need adjustments to set them at the exact desired parameters.
Adjustments can be done either by using an adjustable element in the circuit, e.g. an adjustable resistor or capacitor or inductor, or by measuring many resistors and/or capacitors and/or inductors and selecting the ones with the right values to be used by your device.
Redoing periodically the adjustments also solves the aging problem. However, both the initial adjustment and any periodic readjustments need a lot of work, so they are no longer acceptable in the industry.
When doing something for yourself, you may make an analog controller and the initial adjustment would not be a problem, but even in this case it would be annoying to keep track and remember something like having to readjust a fan controller every 6 months, to be sure that it still works as intended.
You're over thinking it. If the application is very simple and needs to do one thing, an analog system works fine. Once you start needing sequencing, multiple adjustments, and maybe a little smarts then a CPU can get involved.
I worked at a shop that had an old closed loop water-air chiller for a laser. The water temperature controller was a small PCB with an op-amp chip with some passives and the temperature was set by a potentiometer. That thing ran fine until the compressor died and it sent to scrap.
I bet you can. But you can't turn a simple single linear amplifier into a PID controller with zero physical changes, can you?
My point was that, if you want additional behavior, you need to bake that in from the start. With an MCU you can trivially switch it in-the-field to literally anything you can imagine.
Yup. You could use a quad opamp to build a PWM controller with closed loop control but then you need all the passives to setup the oscillator and so on.
I went through this years ago making a fan driver for my vehicles HVAC blower. The analog setup was fun to make but you use more board space, higher BOM count, and really, higher BOM cost vs a micro-controller.
It's crazy how far technology has advanced. A μc with RAM and a bunch of input and output ports and some code is cheaper today than a pile of analog components.
Practical freedoms are often more constrained by economics making political freedoms moot and less valued by the masses. Eroding practical freedoms has other negative lasting effects on maintaining all forms of freedom
If humans didn't manage risks to livestock on an industry scale they would be at risk. It requires a constant investment from both commercial industry and government. Activities like the dept of agriculture and university ag depts have been really so good at what they do. Its like the rest of civilization has forgotten what it takes and the costs involved if we neglect the investment. Agriculture and livestock is just one foundational civilization technology where we have forgotten the significance of
What is considered livestock varies over time - chickens range from "free range and can survive in the wild" to "so fat they can't live". One guess as to which is the most common by numbers - one reason that if you do decide to have a backyard flock, go with something "more natural".
More dangerous in all these is the monoculture - a hundred years ago we would have a wide range of crops and livestock; now 90% of meat chickens are probably the same genetically; similar with cows and bananas and corn and rice and pigs, etc. That sets us up for a "wipe out 90% of chickens" risk.
Monoculture is definitely a risk, one exacerbated by megacorps and overly corporatized industry - but if you look at the history of ag departments they have introduced multiple variants and variations across crops and animals time and time again. They also work with smaller growers in communities in many ways - natural pest controls consultations for example
It's been known to people working in the space for a long time. Heck, I was working on similar stuff for the Maxwell and later Pascal over a decade ago.
You do have a lot of "MLEs" and "Data Scientists" who only know basic PyTorch and SKLearn, but that kind of fat is being trimmed industry wide now.
Domain experience remains gold, especially in a market like today's.
The richest people I know talk to a range of people like personal assistants, but really the PA is valued for getting things done reliably and in the real world with any needed resources. Even calling in experts as needed - of course they may indeed talk to an AI too
The health insurance industry drives highly increased administrative costs - costs which the insurance companies are happy to foist off onto non insurance channels?
It "may be other than health care" but most (all?) other modern nations on multiple continents in multiple cultures spend less percent GDP on healthcare with longer life expectancy than the US
Every time Ive looked into it marketing is more than half of the costs of US pharma companies - and I would suspect even more as don't know if there has much work to unmask even more of that spending via channels that can occur in ways not obviously marked as marketing or at least are really not core to research and manufacturing.
e.g. is all the "discount coupon" pharmacy rigamarole considered marketing or administration.
This is not correct. Here's Pfizer's 2025 annual report [1]. Total expenses for the year were $55.1 billion. Advertising expenses were $2.7 billion of that, or just under 5%. R&D expenses were $12.1 billion, or just under 22%. They do have a lot of SG&A, but the large majority of that is not going to marketing.
Advertising is only a subset of marketing. From that doc, look at operating costs: SGA was ~$11B and R&D ~$12B - basically 50/50. Pfizer is very international, so is pretty difficult to break out US operating costs and what marketing vs R&D is for just the US. But one can also assume US marketing is higher than any other nation as direct-to-consumer advertising is primarily only allowed in the US.
No. Marketing is an issue but it's not the main driver.
Everybody else uses price controls to keep prices "reasonable"--the drug companies tolerate this so long as selling to the country exceeds their marginal cost of production. They count on the US market to recoup the $1B R&D costs.
Simply mandate that a drug company can't charge more in the US than they do in any other first world country. Major earthquake in drug costs.
The "discount card" bit is basically a reduction in revenue, it's neither marketing nor administration.
reply