> What is LTspice?

It's the best circuit simulator, whose creators did pretty much everything right with the following exceptions:

   - using the wrong key for undo

   - failing to understand that open-sourcing their baby would have made it 10 times better and 10 times more popular. But when you grow up in the hardware world, these concepts are very, very hard to understand.

A few minor things:

Last year LTSpice actually switched to sane hotkeys. Hell has frozen over and our hands rejoice.

We should be careful with "best" without more qualifiers. It's a swiss army knife, but not very sharp. It's no replacement for an RF suite.

> best circuit simulator

QSPICE (made by the author of LTspice) claims to be 10x faster.

Also, LTspice cannot do symbolic transformations, so that places an upper limit to its utility.

LTSpice is awesome, but the user interface is an acquired taste ...

Seems to be standard in the EDA world. Look up how you copy/paste in Eagle. Or what happens to wires when you move a component in a KiCAD schematic.

> Highly recommend looking at Jacob Barandes’ formulation of quantum mechanics as non-Markovian stochastic processes.

seconded

>might make sense to link to the actual material you're referring to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshJyD0aWXg

In a fews sentences: the evolution of a physical system (quantum and classical) can very successfully be modeled as a stochastic process, and ...

1. state of the system is a real-valued "vector" (could be a vector of with continuous indices), or to put it another way, a "point" in state space.

2. system evolution is described by a real-valued "matrix" (matrix in quotes because it is also possibly a matrix with continuous indices), defined by the laws physics as they apply to the system

3. evolution of the system is modeled by repeatedly applying the matrix to the system (to the vector), possibly with infinitesimal steps.

The major discovery Jacob made is that, historically, folks working on stochastic processes had restricted themselves to studying "markovian" stochastic processes, where the transformation matrix has specific mathematical properties, and this fails to be able to properly model QM.

Jacob removes the constraint that the matrix should obey markovian constraints and lands us in an area of maths that's woefully unexplored: non markovian stochastic processes.

The net result though: you can model quantum mechanics with simple real-valued probabilities and do away entirely with the effing complex numbers.

The whole thing is way more intuitive than the traditional complex number based approach.

Jacob also apparently formally demonstrates that his approach is equivalent to the traditional approach.

Really worth taking a read/listen at.

This was a good discussion on the topics involved as well; between Jacob Barandes & Tim Maudlin. Though I don't recommend watching this without first getting some familiarity with Barandes's ideas... while there's some explanatory dialog in this video I'm posting, mostly is a discussion. It's nice to see the ideas (politely) challenged and answered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPvxAdmhKM

I'm not sure why you're okay with matrices but not the complex numbers. The complex numbers are a particular kind of matrix. Matrices and vector spaces (especially beyond the normal 3 dimensions) are even more mysterious. Complex numbers are fairly typical, and intuitive (rotations in space).

> This LLM did it

You do realize the LLM had access (via his training set) and "reused" (not as is, of course) your own work, right?

> We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

So, essentially to build something for which many, many examples already exist on the web, and which is likely baked into its training set somehow ... mmmyeah.