More from Software and Tech stories from an Insider - iDiallo.com
It's easier for someone in my position, after working 20 years in this field to talk about morals. I can disagree with the choices my employer makes. In fact, I can walk away. But I remember the dilemma I felt I was in, earlier in my career. The lead developer stood behind me while I was working on a feature and asked me to make a div clickable. That's it. Technically, it's the simplest thing you can do. But, I hesitated. He watched from behind as I tabbed through every application on my computer, doing everything but what he asked. "Just make it clickable," he said again. I have made divs clickable a thousand times in my then short career, I knew that html standards were merely a suggestion. But this one rubbed me the wrong way. Instead I said, "I already have an anchor tag below, the div doesn't need to be clickable." "The fuck you're talking about? Just do it." We got into an argument, and I ended up doing exactly what he said. A little after I pushed my code, he revisited my code and added a slight delay to my click event using setTimeout to disconnect the user action to what occurred after. If what I'm saying sounds a bit vague, that's how it was framed at a time. We had disconnected the technical ask, clickable div, from the actual feature to make the whitespace on the page clickable. Let me make it even clearer. Have you ever used a coupon website? You buy something on a website, let's say nike.com. When you get to the checkout cart, they have a little box that says "enter coupon code for a discount". So you scour the web to find a coupon that will help you pay less for your purchase. You land on our website where we offer a dozen coupons, but they are all partially hidden. The section says "click to reveal". When you click, some random popup appears, then the code is revealed for you to copy and paste and you go on your merry way with a discount. Everything sounds fine so far. What you don't know is that the coupon website gets credit for the sale. A portion of the price you paid goes straight into our pocket, whether you got a discount or not. We get credit from the referral, that's how affiliate marketing works. So why is making the div clickable, or the whitespace clickable a big deal? Because it captures accidental clicks. The company doesn't care if they help you find a good discount or not. In fact, they don't even care if the code works. They just want you to click and for that popup to open so they can get the credit. My task was framed as a technical request, instead of outright saying "trick the user into clicking." When the Honey scandal surfaced, I was confused why it was news anyway. Deception in affiliate marketing is a standard. Very often we disconnect our work from the real world consequences. Back in 2019 I met this girl at a friend’s birthday party. She worked at a bank in the software development sector, and told me about the project on which she’d been working. Their system collected data from various sources on people applying for financial services (e.g.: loans) and would indicate if someone was eligible, or raise a red flag. In the latter case they would have to deal with substantial additional bureaucracy, and often times would not be able to access these services anyway. She seemed quite proud of her work, and told me her team had demoed it the previous week in front of the whole office. They’d shown the report that the system generated for each person in the team. In her case, the system flagged her as “dangerous”, and she was not eligible for a loan. Her grandmother was from Iran, and because there’s frequently cases of money laundering or other irregularities in Iran, she’s immediately flagged too. Despite her being a Dutch citizen, born and raised in the Netherlands, and working in this Dutch financial institution, her bloodline was “too risky” for her employer to lend her money.1 I was confused, and honestly, heartbroken. This person was telling me how proud they were of their work, building a system that discriminates them based on their bloodline. I questioned what she thought about it, and she explained “well, the rules are there…” —she paused a few times— “the rules are there…”. I remained silent and she eventually finished her sentence after repeating it a few times “the rules are there to protect us”. Even though this was six years ago, every time I remember this situation it brings me great sadness. Here was a person who’d worked hard to build a system which would discriminate against them, and yet stood proudly defending their work. We don't see it as our responsibility to question the system. We are happy to do the work as long as we don't see the immediate consequences. I feel this whenever I see flock cameras mounted in the street. Someone had to design them, write the code, test them, ensure that they work to spec. Someone had to install them. These are people doing a good technical job, yet I'm sure they wouldn't be happy if they were tracked by the very system. This is why I was mad when Anthropic wrote their manifesto saying they are against tracking citizens, as opposed to non citizens. You don't get one without the other. We track everyone then discriminate later. This is why I'm against age verification systems, no matter how technically impressive the solution is. Because in the end, I'm the one who has to upload my ID to a system that I cannot trust. With AI, it's even easier to disconnect your day to day work from its consequences. I understand it's much easier to ignore these things when you are just getting started in your career, but eventually, you have to voice your opinion.
During the pandemic, we completed one of our largest projects at work. To celebrate, since we couldn't meet in person, we all ordered food on DoorDash and played an online escape room game together. We were on a Zoom call, helping each other out and having fun. The first challenge was to escape a jail cell. To escape, each of us had to find clues in our own cell to figure out how to open the doors. We each had to find an object that solved a piece of the puzzle, and once we put them all together, the door would open. As a first challenge, it was easy enough. Everyone found a brightly colored object in their room and described it to the team so we could piece it together. Everyone but one team member. "Come on, read it, man, we can win this." He froze. Someone jumped in to help: "Mine was the most obvious green object in the room. Just look for something bright. Maybe blue, or orange, something that seems out of place." He didn't respond. He just sat there, frozen on camera. We figured he was having internet connectivity issues. We waited a good five minutes before he finally found it, and we moved on to the next level. I didn't think much of that day. We finished the game, we had fun, it was great. He waited until our next one-on-one to explain what had actually happened. He panicked, and he was embarrassed. It turned out he was colorblind. We were yelling random color names at him, and he couldn't, for the life of him, see any of them. As far as I can tell, I'm not colorblind, and it never would have occurred to me that this was something to account for. Just last week, I learned about Vehicle Motion Cues on the iPhone, a feature that helps reduce motion sickness. I don't think I've ever experienced motion sickness myself, or at least never in a car. Watching a blind person navigate a website was eye-opening for me. I realized that many of my past design choices would have worked against their experience without my ever knowing it. The same goes for someone navigating a computer entirely by voice. I recently rediscovered Windows Speech Recognition, which I found pretty annoying for my own needs. But for someone who relies on it for all of their computer use, it's an essential tool. A coworker once mentioned, almost in passing, that she struggles to read certain fonts because of dyslexia. Tight letter spacing and low-contrast text make some of our internal tools nearly unreadable to her. I had picked those fonts because they looked good on a demo slide. It had never crossed my mind that a font choice could be the difference between someone reading a document easily and someone giving up on it entirely. In some of our zoom calls, a teammate would often ask if he could do audio only before the call. While it didn't bother me at all, the managers kept insisting on everyone turning on their cameras. But after he used the camera for a few minutes, his connection would start dropping. I just assumed he had slow Internet. But the reality was he was located in a rural area and he relied entirely on his phone's hotspot to connect to the internet. The zoom call was using up all his data in minutes. None of these problems were problems for me. That's exactly what made them invisible. Unless you are experiencing these issues, there's little reason to ever notice them. We tend to design our tools, our meetings, and our expectations around our own experience of the world, and then mistake that experience for the default. It takes a colorblind teammate freezing on a call, or a friend who can't ride in the passenger seat without getting sick, to remind us that "normal" was only ever normal for us. You can never anticipate every invisible problem in advance, that's impossible. But at the very least, we should remember that our own experience is rarely the default. We should be a bit more curious on how others experience the tools we build.
Amazon has been accused several times for ripping off merchants on its platform. And every single time they denied any wrongdoing. A merchant, or anyone really, can create a product (or source it from China), then resell it on amazon. Amazon is the service provider, and hosts all the metrics concerning the products. If Amazon themselves were in the business of creating and selling products, then that creates a potential of conflict of interest. Because they have the data of all products that sell and sell well. They could replicate that success without doing any further research since the merchant has already confirmed the existence of demand. It's not surprising that Amazon Basics quickly became the best selling "private-label brand" on Amazon. They already know what sells because they have access to the data. Yet they continued to deny it, and state that they only ever use publicly available data from sellers. An Amazon spokesperson said the company believes the allegations are "factually incorrect and unsubstantiated," adding that Amazon strictly prohibits the "use or sharing of non-public, seller-specific data for the benefit of any seller, including sellers of private brands." Yet the results are right there for all to see. If you sell any product through Amazon, you are exposing your company's operations to them. If you want to keep that information to yourself, then you don't get to reach your customers, which in reality are Amazon's customers. If you want to buy something online, and get it shipped as quickly as possible, then Amazon is a blessing. Most often than not, you are not buying the product directly from Amazon. An independent store or vendor with a presence on Amazon will fulfill your order. The seller only has minor identifying characteristics on the platform. On the search result page, the space designated to the seller is small and insignificant. The customer has very few reminders that products are offered by anyone but Amazon. (Although if you want to dispute a sale, you are starkly reminded that the item is from a 3rd party vendor.) So there is no surprise when companies embrace AI internally, they are putting themselves at the risk of sharing their product with their competitors. Maybe the most obvious example is when Antropic came up with Claude Design. A tool to help users generate designs, wireframes, etc. Kinda like Figma. That's not a problem on its own, but when Antropic's chief product officer sits on Figma's board of directors, you can't say that there isn't a conflict of interest there. In fact, the chief product officer resigned from the board merely days before Claude Design was announced. He basically extracted all value from Figma then resigned. Figma's AI features are built on top of Claude. So Anthropic literally pulled an Amazon Basic on Figma. When companies force their own employees to use AI to do their day to day work, they are basically asking employees to upload company data to a 3rd party that may become a competitor. Sure something in the contract clause says that the AI company won't train on enterprise customer data, but nothing stops them from peaking at successful product data. Whenever someone tells me that they used AI to build an app and boast of its values or uniqueness, I want to remind them that if you can just prompt-create a product, so can the AI provider. In fact, they might have better resources to create a competing product if it displays any sign of success (see Figma). While it looks like plenty of people are benefitting from AI today, all this information is being shared with AI providers. We are giving them full access to our thought process. When you include them in your workflow, you are basically providing them with a step by step approach on how to do your job. Don’t be surprised when you see a native Antropic/OpenAi project management application suite. Or a CRM, or any software that is trying to integrate with AI and may experience success. A few years back, when I worked in Customer Service Automation, we discovered that most companies used Zendesk to manage their customer service. Since customers mainly contacted support via email, an intentional database had been built that tracked users through their shopping experience throughout the web. While so much could be done with that data, like identifying “problematic” customers, or recommending products based on their history, we ended up finding something more helpful. We could easily detect a pattern of issues for certain shipping carriers. We could see when UPS was having delays in certain cities, or when Fedex was having technical issues when updating the last mile status. None of these things were features designed or provided by anyone. However, having access to businesses’ data gave us insight where we had none before. That became a feature for us, only because we were not competitors to all these online retailers. When you expose your company's internal data to a potential competitor, don’t be surprised when they build a competing business to rival you.
Whenever I saw someone type a natural language query into Google, it made me cringe. "It's not a person," I would say. "Type like you're talking to a machine." This was especially true for programmers and it was before AI took over everything. Instead of "how do I write a function that reads a file?", I would suggest they use specific keywords, something that sounded more like machine language than conversation. "js function to read csv file" or "css gradient background property example." This got you better results. Even though Google was a sophisticated search engine, it was still doing a kind of keyword matching under the hood. But not anymore. You don't get any advantage from writing in "machine language." Google understands natural language just as well. In fact, even better. How is it that in 2026, I Google things less than ever? It's not that I know everything now. It's more that I don't want to call the friend who always talks too much. If the height of the Eiffel Tower ever comes up in conversation, I'll type "eiffel tower wiki" and click through to Wikipedia. I don't want to have a conversation about it. Googling something these days feels like Google is trying to join my private conversation. Where it used to be a tool for finding answers elsewhere, now it's a buddy who gives you an answer. And just as you're about to leave, it says, "hey, did you also know that..." There used to be a machine between me and the information I was looking for. It was good at its job. It sorted, ranked, then presented information. But now, the machine is constantly pushing information at me, watching my reaction, learning from it, and feeding me more, unsolicited. Before, information lived on the web and was hard to find. Today, information still exists, but it's buried under noise. Google no longer helps you find it, it just gives you an answer. That answer might be right or wrong, and right below it, in small print: "AI responses may include mistakes." You rarely get to verify whether the answer is correct, because almost no one clicks through to the source. I know this firsthand. More than three-quarters of my Google referral traffic has disappeared, while my search impressions keep climbing. So what's left to do? I could mourn the old Google, the simpler web. But as the title says, we aren't going back. This is the new reality, and we have to adapt. Rather than blindly embracing change, I think it's smarter to pick and choose. Just last week, I wrote about the small web still being alive. And it did exactly what its name suggests. It stayed small. There are other search engines built for people who want more control. DuckDuckGo. Kagi (my personal favorite). The habit of Googling everything is learned behavior and learned behaviors can be unlearned. What's harder to convey is that Google never presented us with facts, only sources and citations. The way the google answer is presented, we have the impression they are giving us undisputable truths. When everyone is sharing screenshots of the answer they got, all you can do is share a screenshot of the opposite answer you got. The source gets lost. That's where we are now. Skimming the average sentiment of a Reddit thread, or confirming something we already believed. This is the new reality. We're not going back to keyword matching. But I also don't have to accept the new way as the only way. Google has made its search box AI-first and that's their right, it's their product. But it's also my opportunity to try something different. We are not going back. So I might as well choose where I go next.
More in technology
Sometimes it's easier to identify an IC with a microscope. While sorting a box of old ICs, CuriousMarc came across some Harris ICs labeled "F1-10-5", a mysterious part number that didn't show up in any databooks. Since unidentifiable ICs are useless, he gave me one to analyze. Conveniently, it was in a ceramic package, so I could open it up with a quick tap from a chisel. Under the microscope, the chip's most striking feature was a grid of square capacitors. With all those capacitors, I guessed that it was a switched-capacitor filter. The die provided another clue: the part number HF-10. With this information, we quickly found that the chip was Harris's version of the standard MF10 switched-capacitor filter chip.1 The Harris integrated circuit, labeled F1-10-5 (or maybe FI-10-5), with a 1985 date code. Photo courtesy of CuriousMarc. Switched-capacitor filters were a popular way to implement analog filters in the 1980s. Rapidly switching capacitors in and out of a circuit enabled the construction of single-chip filters that were easy to use and performed well. The MF10, introduced by National Semiconductor in 1981, provides two flexible filters on a chip; each filter acts as a low-pass filter, band-pass filter, or a high-pass filter. The filter's characteristics are simple to control with a few external resistors. The Harris HF-10 die under the microscope with the main functional blocks labeled. (Click for a larger image.) Since I had the chip under the microscope, I took the opportunity to analyze it more closely. The white lines are the metal wiring that connects the chip's circuitry. Under the metal layer are two layers of polysilicon (reddish) and the underlying silicon (gray). The top and bottom halves of the chip are mostly mirror images, corresponding to the chip's two filters. The distinctive reddish squares in the middle of the chip are 72 tiny capacitors, constructed from polysilicon. Above the capacitors, CMOS switches turn on and off at the clock frequency, switching capacitors in and out of the circuit. Each filter uses three operational amplifiers (op amps), outlined in red. At the right are the three outputs from the three op amps: high pass, band pass, and low pass. The control circuitry is on the left: clock level shifting, clock shaping, frequency ratio handling, startup circuitry, and current sinks to provide fixed currents to other parts of the chip. Around the edges of the silicon die, 20 hair-thin bond wires connect the die to its 20 external pins. The die has some interesting chip art: a Harris logo and an outline of Florida; Harris was headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. The initials on the die are presumably the engineers who designed the chip. Some interesting images from the die. Switched capacitor circuits The filter is based on switched-capacitor circuits. A switched capacitor can replace a resistor in certain circuits, as shown below. The switches are controlled by a clock signal; the switches alternately close in clock phase 1 and phase 2 (ϕ1 and ϕ2). In phase 1, the capacitor is charged to the input voltage. In phase 2, the capacitor passes charge to the output. By rapidly toggling the switches, charge is (almost) steadily passed to the output. The larger the capacitance, the more charge that is passed through. Likewise, a higher frequency passes more charge. It can be shown that the circuit matches a resistor with resistance of 1/(fC): a higher capacitance and frequency correspond to lower resistance. A switched capacitor can replace a resistor. Why would you replace a simple resistor with this complicated switching circuit? In an integrated circuit, resistors are inaccurate and inconveniently large, especially high-value resistors. Replacing a large resistor with a small capacitor saves space on the die. Moreover, it is easy to generate an extremely accurate clock frequency with an inexpensive quartz crystal, making the filter's frequency highly accurate. Finally, the equivalent resistance can be changed simply by changing the clock frequency, making it easy to tune or sweep the filter. On-chip capacitors are fairly inaccurate, with the capacitance typically varying by 20% from chip to chip due to variations in manufacturing conditions. However, this isn't a problem in the MF10 because the circuitry was designed to depend on the ratio between capacitances, which is stable. Specifically, the MF10 uses 72 identical square capacitors, which will have almost identical capacitances. Careful examination shows that some of the capacitors are separate, while others are connected in groups of 8 to form larger capacitors.2 This yields a highly accurate ratio of 8:1 between the grouped capacitors and the individual capacitors, even though the absolute capacitance will vary from chip to chip. Each capacitor is constructed from two layers of polysilicon,3 forming the plates of the capacitor, separated by a thin layer of insulating oxide that acts as the dielectric. I estimate that each capacitor square is 5 picofarads. The grid of capacitors in the MF10. I've added yellow lines to show how the capacitors are grouped. The switches are above and below the capacitors. This chip uses one more trick with switched capacitors: it inverts the voltage while acting as a resistor. In the switched-capacitor circuit below, there are four switches. The capacitor charges to the input voltage during phase 1, the same as before. But duing phase 2, note that the top plate of the capacitor is grounded, while the output comes from the bottom plate. If the capacitor was charged to, say, 1 volt, the top plate is 1 volt above the bottom plate. So if the top plate is grounded, then the bottom plate must be at -1 V. (This is the same idea as a charge pump.) This circuit turns out to yield a more accurate filter because some parasitic capacitances cancel out. By using four switches, the switched capacitor can invert the voltage. The op-amp integrator The heart of most analog circuits is the operational amplifier, or op-amp. An op-amp takes two inputs and amplifies the difference by many orders of magnitude. Normally, an op-amp is configured with negative feedback, which forces the two inputs to be essentially the same. Op-amps are useful not only for amplification, but for filtering, buffering, summing, and other tasks. A basic op-amp integrator. The filter chip uses op-amps as integrators, to integrate an input voltage over time. The circuit above shows a simple op-amp integrator. The input voltage produces a current that flows through the resistor and charges the capacitor, so the capacitor holds the integral of the input voltage over time. You might expect that the left side of the capacitor would become positive as it charges. However, the op-amp's feedback forces both inputs to ground, so instead the right side of the capacitor becomes negative. Thus, the output is the negative integral.4 The MF10 chip uses the circuit above, except the resistor is replaced with a switched capacitor. The capacitor across the op-amp is not switched, but consists of either 8 or 16 capacitors from the capacitor grid. The CMOS switches The CMOS switch is the technology that makes the switched-capacitor filter possible. A CMOS switch has a fairly low resistance (maybe tens of ohms) when closed and an enormously high resistance (hundreds of megohms) when open. This high resistance ensures that the charge doesn't leak out of the capacitors. A CMOS switch is constructed by combining an NMOS transistor and a PMOS transistor. The NMOS transistor and PMOS transistor are opposites. An NMOS transistor is good at pulling the output low, while a PMOS transistor is good at pulling the output high, so in combination they provide an effective switch. An NMOS transistor is turned on by a high voltage on the gate, while a PMOS transistor is turned on by a low voltage on the gate. Thus, a CMOS switch requires two control signals of opposite polarity, which is a minor inconvenience. A CMOS switch. The diagram above shows how a switch is implemented with an NMOS transistor and a PMOS transistor in parallel. When the control line is high, and the inverted control line is low, both transistors turn on, providing a path through the switch circuit. When the control line is low (and the inverted line high), the transistors turn off, opening the switch. The chip uses CMOS switches in pairs, with one switch on and the other off. This forms the equivalent of a toggle switch that connects either A or B to the output. This circuit is simply two CMOS switches, with separate control lines for each switch, as shown below. In the MF10, the switch toggles at the clock frequency. During one clock phase, the switch is connected to A, while the switch is connected to B during the other clock phase. The schematic on the right, below, is the same circuit, but reorganized to match the layout on the die. A double-throw CMOS switch. The photo below shows a CMOS switch on the die, constructed from two PMOS transistors and two NMOS transistors. The four control lines run horizontally in polysilicon, forming a transistor gate where they cross doped silicon. The upper PMOS and NMOS transistors are driven by the clock phase 1 (Φ1) signals, while the lower transistors are driven by the phase 2 signals. CMOS switches on the die. The metal layer was removed to show the transistors. One problem with switched-capacitor filters is that the clock can generate switching noise that appears in the chip's outputs. The MF10 uses several techniques to reduce clock noise. Each set of transistors is surrounded by two isolation rings: one positive and one negative. These block noise from traveling through the silicon substrate. Note that the rings have opposite polarity for the NMOS transistors and the PMOS transistors. The light tan region in the photo above is a second layer of polysilicon. This polysilicon is connected to ground, providing a shield layer over the switching circuits. For the photo above, I removed the metal layer with acid5 to make the transistors more visible. The photo below shows the original die, with the metal layer connecting the transistors. The small black circles are connections between the metal layer and silicon or polysilicon. The same CMOS switches, showing the metal layer. Putting it together: the state variable filter There are many ways of creating a filter. The MF10 chip uses a technique called the state variable filter, invented in 1967. This circuit acts as three filters, with high-pass, band-pass, and low-pass outputs. Moreover, the circuit is flexible since the frequency, the gain, and the filter quality (Q) can be varied independently. It uses three op-amps: one to sum signals and two for integration. By changing how the values are summed, the characteristics of the filters can be changed. The diagram below shows a simplified representation of a state variable filter. The mathematics behind a state variable filter is complicated, so I won't get into it. In short, the signal, the integral, and the double integral form the three state variables that define the state of the system. Simplified diagram of a state variable filter, with two integrators. Inspired by North Coast Synthesis. The block diagram below shows how the filter is represented in the MF10 datasheet.6 The diagram is similar to the diagram above, with three op-amps. However, the summing circuitry has been separated out. Moreover, the feedback paths are not shown explictly. Instead, resistors are connected between the chip's external pins (squares) to configure the filter as desired. The mode switch at the top allows the low-pass feedback to be controlled by an external pin (SA/B). Block diagram of one of the filter sections. Adapted from the datasheet. The schematic below is my reverse-engineered schematic of the filter, as implemented on the chip. It closely matches the block diagram, but fills in the details. In the block diagram, the summing circuit (circle) adds one signal and subtracts two signals. This summing circuit is implemented with the three switched capacitors on the left, which act as summing resistors. Note that one switch is grounded during phase 1, while the others are grounded during phase 2; switching the polarity implements addition versus subtraction. The top sum input is either feedback from the low-pass output or ground, selected by an input pin. A CMOS switch is used here, but the switch is static, not clocked, so it doesn't use protection rings and shielding like the other switches. My reverse-engineered schematic of one of the filters. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. The integrators have switched capacitors on the inputs, acting as resistors. The integration capacitor is either 8 or 16 "squares" of capacitance, selected by a ratio selection pin. This controls the ratio between the clock frequency and the filter frequency, either 50:1 or 100:1.7 Although the integration capacitors are attached to a CMOS switch, the switch is static, so the capacitors act as regular capacitors, not switched capacitors. The op-amps The op-amps are fairly standard CMOS op-amps, built from about 35 transistors. (You might get a lower count if you try counting the transistors below, since some of the blocks are multiple transistors.) The op-amp transistors are much larger than the CMOS switch transistors (very bottom, center). On the die, each op-amp is split into two parts: the differential amplifier on the left and an additional amplification stage on the right. A large capacitor (pinkish) sits between the halves. My first thought was that this was the integration capacitor, but it is just a frequency compensation capacitor, common in many op-amps to stabilize the output. The op-amps also have large transistors next to the output pins; these transistors are functionally part of the op-amps, but located next to the pins to minimize resistance. One of the chip's op-amps. I removed the metal layer to make the transistors visible. One unusual feature of the op-amps is a low-power mode. Pulling a particular IC pin low causes the chip to stop filtering and enter a low-power mode, reducing power consumption by 70%. This is implemented by shutting down the "current mirror" circuits that provide fixed currents to the op-amps and other parts of the chip. The non-overlapping clock generator The MF10 chip is driven by external clock signals, one for each filter, with the frequency of the filter proportional to the clock frequency. The photo of the CMOS switches earlier showed that the clock drives four control lines for the switches. You might think that two control lines would be sufficient: the clock and the inverted clock. The problem is that it is very important to avoid having both switches closed at the same time, even for a moment, as that will short the inputs and corrupt the signals. Instead, the two switches have separate control lines that enforce a small gap between when one switch opens and the other one closes. This is implemented with the circuit below that takes an input clock signal and produces the four outputs that drive the switches. The circuit to generate non-overlapping clock signals. There is a delay between when gate A or B turns on and when the corresponding output changes. The idea behind the circuit is that a phase is blocked from going high until after the other phase goes low, with a pair of inverters providing additional delay. In more detail, suppose the input clock drops from high to low. Gate A will turn off, causing the phase 1 output (ϕ1) to drop after a few gate delays (A delay). Gate B can't turn on until ϕ1 goes low. After additional gate delays, ϕ2 goes high. The behavior is similar when the input clock goes high. Gate B turns off, causing ϕ2 to go low after a delay. This allows gate A to turn on, turning on ϕ1 after more delay. To summarize, after a phase is turned off, there is a delay before the other phase turns on, so the two phases never overlap. The clock-shaping circuitry is implemented with CMOS logic gates. The photo above shows this circuitry under the microscope, with the metal layer removed. The rectangular blocks are doped silicon that forms transistors. The darker regions on the left are NMOS transistors and the lighter regions on the right are PMOS transistors. A CMOS gate consists of NMOS and PMOS transistors working together. The PMOS transistors are larger because PMOS transistors are slightly less efficient than NMOS transistors. The dark circles are contacts between the silicon and the metal layer on top. The copper-colored lines are not metal but a special type of silicon called polysilicon. When a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, it forms the gate of a transistor. The pinks and greens are due to thin-film interference from a thin layer of oxide that didn't completely dissolve; the silicon is actually gray. The ternary input A weird feature of the chip is the input pin that selects the ratio between the input clock and the filter frequency. In effect, this is a digital input with three values. Tying the pin to the high supply voltage selects a 50:1 ratio. Tying the pin to the midpoint between the supply voltages selects a 100:1 ratio. Pulling the pin to the low supply voltage stops the filter and puts the chip into a low-power mode.8 To handle the three-level input, the input goes through two separate buffers, one that transitions at a lower voltage and one that transitions at a higher voltage. Thus, the two buffers separate the middle signal level. Each buffer consists of a special inverter feeding into a regular inverter. Before explaining the special inverters, I'll review how a regular CMOS inverter works. A CMOS inverter is constructed from a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. When the input is high, the NMOS transistor turns on and pulls the output to ground. When the input is low, the PMOS transistor turns on and pulls the output high. Thus, the input signal is inverted. A CMOS inverter is constructed from a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. In the die photo, you can see the four PMOS transistors (light gray) and four NMOS transistors (darker), forming four inverters. When a polysilicon line (copper-colored) crosses a doped silicon region, it forms the gate of a transistor. For this picture, I dissolved the metal layer in acid so the transistors are visible. The metal layer connected the transistors to complete the wiring of the inverters: it connects the two "out1" contacts to "in2" and connects the two "out2" contacts to the rest of the chip. For the second buffer, "out3" connects to "in4" and so forth. The four inverters that handle the ternary input. I flipped the image to make the orientation better. In this circuit, the length of the transistor gates is varied to make the inverters activate at different voltage levels. Six of the transistor gates are normal (orange arrows); the PMOS gates are wider (in the vertical direction) than the NMOS gates because PMOS transistors are inherently weaker. However, two of the transistor gates are unusually long (horizontal direction, red), making the transistors weak since the current must travel a longer distance. The inverter on the left has a weak PMOS transistor. If the input is high or low, the inverter will operate normally. But if the input is in the middle, both transistors will partially turn on. Since the PMOS transistor is very weak, the NMOS transistor will "win", pulling the output low. Thus, the leftmost inverter treats a medium-level input as a 1, outputting a 0. The third inverter is the opposite; the NMOS transistor has a long, winding gate, so it is weak. In this case, a medium-level input will partially turn on both transistors, but the PMOS transistor will "win", pulling the output high. To summarize, the two inverters have opposite behavior for a middle-level signal, allowing the three input levels to be distinguished. Since the output from a special inverter may be weak, the output goes to a normal inverter to amplify the signal. Conclusions Like most semiconductor companies, Harris has a complicated history. Harris started way back in 1895 as a printing press company. Harris moved into high technology in the 1950s and 1960s, acquiring various radio and electronics companies. In particular, Harris entered the IC business in 1967, when it acquired Radiation, Inc., renaming it Harris Semiconductor a few years later. (We've encountered some Radiation modules in Apollo systems, but I haven't written about them yet.) Harris got out of the semiconductor business in 1999, spinning off Intersil, which was later acquired by the Japanese semiconductor firm Renesas. In 2019, Harris merged with L3 Technologies to become L3Harris, the eighth-largest defense contractor in the US. As for switched-capacitor filters, they have lost popularity as filtering is now more easily done in the digital domain. Texas Instruments acquired National Semiconductor (and the MF10) in 2011; TI's website shows the MF10 as active but expensive and out of stock, so it's probably no longer being manufactured. State variable filters are still used in the synthesizer world both because of their flexibility and because they provide low-pass, band-pass, and high-pass filters in one unit. For more, follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com), Mastodon (@[email protected]), or RSS. Thanks to CuriousMarc for providing the IC. AI statement: Despite the presence of the em dash, no AI was used in the writing of this article (details). Notes and references Once we found the "HF-10" part number, a search turned up a National Semiconductor databook that confirmed that the Harris HF-10 was a direct replacement for the National Semiconductor MF10. It remains a mystery why the Harris chip is externally labeled "F1-10-5" rather than "HF-10". This format doesn't resemble other Harris part numbers. I would suspect a military part number, but it is completely different from the military formats that I've seen on other chips, such as JM38510 numbers or NSN numbers. ↩ You might wonder why the larger capacitors are formed by connecting eight smaller capacitor squares, rather than making one capacitor that is eight times as big. The reason is to get better matching between the two capacitor sizes. A capacitor that is eight times as large won't have exactly eight times the capacitance due to factors such as the behavior of the electric field around the edge of the capacitor, inaccuracies that may make the capacitor slightly larger or smaller than desired, or etching variability around the edges. By building larger capacitors out of identical smaller capacitors, the values can match very well, up to ±0.01% according to The Art of Analog Layout. (With laser trimming, matching of ±0.001% is possible, but that is much more accuracy than the MF10 required.) ↩ Most chips from this era have a single layer of polysilicon, so I was surprised to find two layers in this chip. I've seen two layers of polysilicon before, in the MK4116 DRAM chip and AMD's LANCE Ethernet chip. In both cases, the second layer of polysilicon was used for storage devices. ↩ A standard op-amp integrator is an inverting integrator, and the output is negative. However, the MF10 uses the four-switch switched capacitor that inverts the input voltage. The two negatives cancel out, so the MF-10's integrator is a non-inverting integrator. See Introducing the MF10: A Versatile Monolithic Active Filter Building Block for details. ↩ To remove the metal layer, I used Whink rust stain remover (1.5-3.5% HF) to remove the oxide layer and hydrochloric acid to dissolve the metal. I applied Whink for 20 minutes and HCl for 16 minutes in total. I alternated each chemical for about 3 minutes each, applying a few drops at a time. I examined the die under the microscope after each application to gauge the progress. I stopped at this point since the metal was removed and the underlying transistors were visible. Moreover, the silicon became differentially stained, with NMOS transistors significantly darker than PMOS transistors. Some more Whink would probably improve the appearance of the die, but the risk is that the polysilicon might get removed, which would be bad for reverse engineering. In other words, I'd rather stop too early than destroy the features that I want to see. ↩ For reference, the full block diagram of the chip is below, from the datasheet. Block diagram of the MF10 from the Texas Instruments datasheet. ↩ The filter frequency of the MF10 can be set to either the clock frequency divided by 50 or divided by 100. You might wonder where these ratios come from, since the capacitors on the chip are in 8:1 or 16:1 ratios, not 50:1 or 100:1. The formula for a switched-capacitor integrator is that the filter frequency is the clock frequency divided by 2π times the capacitor ratio. (This can be derived from the op-amp integrator formula and the equivalent resistance of a switched capacitor.) It turns out 2π×8 is 50.27 and 2π×16 is 100.5, providing the 50 and 100 values. Note that these values aren't exactly 50 and 100; they are off by 0.5%. Curiously, the datasheet specifies that the typical frequency error is ±0.2%, significantly smaller. I suspect that the explanation is that the capacitor ratio is not precisely 16:1, due to stray capacitance in the wiring and other factors, and the designers ensured that these factors tweaked the ratio in the desired direction. ↩ I suspect that the ternary input pin was used because the chip didn't have enough physical pins for all the functions they wanted. Note that the two filters are entirely independent, even with separate clocks, except for the 50/100 ratio control and the A/B mode control. I'm sure that these two functions would have independent control pins if the chip had pins available. They could have used a standard 24-pin package for the chip rather than the somewhat unusual 20-pin package, but maybe they had a motivation for avoiding a much larger 24-pin package. ↩
There was a time I'd look at a board like the Radxa Dragon Q8B (at left, above) and be like, "there's no way I'd spend $209 on an SBC with 8 gigs of RAM". But we're in 2026, and seeing the 8 gig Raspberry Pi 5 going for almost the same amount, I figured I'd give it a shot. On paper, the Q8B beats the Pi 5 in pretty much every way. A lot of that is thanks to this Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 chip, which is the same chip I tested on Microsoft's Windows Dev Kit 2023.
The Sting belongs in the pantheon of films I'm deeply embarrassed to have not watched earlier. Not just because it's a great film — and it is — but because it is so incredibly my shit that I feel retroactively spurned for not having watched it sooner.
If everything worked as well as the product called Evapo-Rust, the world would be a much better place. That’s just one of the many lessons learned during my recent — successful! — project to transform my old, nonfunctioning gasoline-powered generator into something much better.