You Gotta Want It

August 22, 2026 by Elliot Williams 5 Comments

On Hackaday last week, and on the podcast, we were talking about one of the educational toys of yesteryear that launched a thousand careers, at least if the comment section is to be believed: the Radio Shack 200-in-1 electronics kit. The “toy” itself was basically a bunch of components with spring terminals, but the secret sauce was in in the instruction book, and maybe the marketing.

Tom had one of these when he was a kid, and told a great story about wanting it desperately based on the ads he had seen with kids Morse coding to each other. When he got the kit, and found out that “it was just a bunch of wires” he was fully pissed off. But he worked through the examples, learned some basic electronics, and the rest is history.

What I really love about this story is the siren’s call of a good project. Tom was pulled in, and maybe even fooled, by the advertising, but it probably changed his life. It’s funny how many of our folks can remember the first project that got them hooked as well. With me it was some simple audio effects pedals and then maybe later some simple BEAM robots, and for younger hackers maybe it was a 3D printer or Arduino project.

Digital or analog, the common ground here is that we all thought that some project was cool enough to warrant the sweat of learning enough to do it. Good instructions are helpful of course, and having the parts on hand never hurts. But it’s the promise of making something that you really want that I think underlies all good first projects. (And heck, every subsequent project as well.)

So while Tom, and a bunch of our readers, were looking back with nostalgia at the 200-in-1, I’m thinking about how many more than 200 projects I’ve seen made by our community, and even featured here on Hackaday, that are out there to provide the motivation to get someone started. Keep on hacking!

Fully Characterized Systems

August 15, 2026 by Elliot Williams 13 Comments

A friend from my old hackerspace was in grad school for electrical engineering. He had a professor who would ask, when something went wrong with a student project, “Have you fully characterized the system?” It’s a good, if lofty, goal, but it also became an inside joke around the hackerspace because YOLO was our MO about 95% of the time. Head crashes on the 3D printer – “not fully characterized”. Forgot to take out the trash last weekend? Was the system fully characterized?

It’s maybe also the difference between theory and practice: In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice, and all systems can be fully characterized. But in practice, it’s hard to fully characterize a system that you don’t yet fully understand.

Case in point: we have nine small saplings growing in our front yard, and I have to water them. It’s boring moving the hose from tree to tree, so I thought I’d take a length of hose, stopper it at one end, and drill enough holes in it so that it could irrigate all of the trees at once. I kinda characterized the system: I figured out how much water flows per minute through our hose, and divided that up into a reasonable outflow in my mind, and drilled holes that ended up being way too large.

Why? Because a length of hose has a resistance to flow, and the water came pouring out of the first few holes, while the last few were dry. It wasn’t a constant pressure system like I thought it would be. I hadn’t even thought that the drag in the hose would matter, so there was no way I would have tried to measure it. But how would I characterize this resistance anyway? You could make a hose with too-large holes and measure the falloff. (Oops, that’s exactly what I did.)

In retrospect, professional drip irrigation systems always have holes that are tiny relative to the pipe diameter, which avoids this pressure-drop phenomenon, which means that they don’t have to worry about characterizing the hose resistance. So that’s what I ended up doing. I cut the hole size in half, and later widened up some of the downstream holes until it looked about right. Not even close to fully characterized, but it works.

So now, in addition to the engineer’s “have you fully characterized the system?”, I have the hacker’s “can you avoid characterizing parts of the system?” in my mind. And a holey chunk of hose in the trashcan.

Supercon News

Just briefly, in case you missed it: Tickets are on sale now for Supercon Ten, and we’ve extended the call for participation by another two weeks. If you’re a Hackaday fan, you owe it to yourself to join us at our annual gathering.

When Changing Scale Isn’t Just More Of The Same

July 11, 2026 by Elliot Williams 22 Comments

[Jenny] and I were talking about [Bitluni]’s experiment in scale, where he will take 65,536 cheap microcontrollers, network them all together, and give each one an RGB pixel. From there, antics will surely ensue. Right now, he’s only got 8,192 of them up and running, and already the novel problems and opportunities are rearing their heads.

We all know it from our own hacking. In theory, doing something ten times is ten times doing it once. But then in practice, entirely new phenomena appear as you scale up that were simply not there in the small. Maybe it happens when you repeat it one hundred times, or a thousand.

Viewed positively, this is the property of emergence: how the whole can be more than the sum of its parts, and how biology isn’t just chemistry multiplied by a few million interactions. In our blinky world, a massive wall of LEDs is a display, not just a bunch of pixels.

On the flip side, going from one microcontroller with a 10 mA current draw to 64 Ki controllers, with 655 A, is more than just a difference in scale. You need to learn a new skill set to handle the problem. Making a single prototype is a different problem from making a run of badges for a conference of 5,000 – you’ll need a team, and won’t be able to just hack it alone – not to even mention the parts sourcing woes.

So I loved watching [Bitluni] going through the upscaling. He certainly had an idea of what he was getting himself into, but as with the emerging properties of a big system, there are often emerging problems, and those you can’t always see ahead of time. Have you gotten into a project that scaled itself into something qualitatively different? Tell us about it.

When An Engineering Education Doesn’t Teach You How To Really Make Anything

July 7, 2026 by Jenny List 112 Comments

In the sweltering temperatures of an unusually hot European heatwave, I found myself having a chat with a friend of mine from my university days. After discussing the health of his cat who had solved the problem of a fur coat on a hot day by flattening himself out on the concrete floor in the coolest place in the house, we moved on to tech matters. We’ve known each other for not far short of four decades, so this is familiar territory for us. The problems that come with taking a prototype to manufacturing, a process which even the most seasoned of engineers can slip up on.

The Difference Between Making, And Making For Manufacture

If you’ve ever taken a project and replicated it, you will know the progression. If you’re making five or ten widgets, you can debug and rework as needed, tweak things, and get things going. If you’re making more then this, the process consumes a greater proportion of your time, until a point at which manufacture becomes impractical. Maybe that’s around fifty boards, sometimes more or less. Continue reading “When An Engineering Education Doesn’t Teach You How To Really Make Anything” →

Ask Hackaday: What Ever Happened To The Hero Nerd?

June 17, 2026 by Tom Nardi 178 Comments

Knowing absolutely nothing about you other than the fact that you’re currently reading Hackaday, I can predict with a high degree of certainty that we’re both fond of at least a few of the same movies. That’s not to say they’re necessarily our favorite works of art. Indeed, in some cases they may even be objectively bad films. But the memory of them has stuck with us — and by extension nearly everyone else in the hacker and maker community — for decades.

Even if you don’t remember all the little details, you’ll never forget the names: movies like WarGames, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, and Short Circuit. Stories that showed smart people using their intellect and a bit of cobbled together hardware to triumph over the bad guys. The tech wasn’t always believable, sometimes it was downright farcical. But they made it seem real, and by the end of the story when they won the day using brains and a soldering iron rather than fists or a gun, the minutia of how it all worked wasn’t really that important anyway.

It’s not a stretch to say that films such as these helped put many of us on a path towards science and technology. For those with an interest in more cerebral pursuits, seeing a scientist or an engineer save the day was hugely influential. How many engineers got their start watching Scotty frantically eke just a bit more power out of the Enterprise?

But as we recently discussed some of these classic movies behind the scenes here at Hackaday, it struck us that all of the best examples we could come up with were now 20, 30, or even 40 years old. That’s not to say there aren’t a few contemporary standouts, but they mostly seem to be biopics or other historical dramatizations which don’t quite scratch the same itch. Even so, none of them appear to have had the cultural impact necessary to stand the test of time in the same way their predecessors have.

So where have all of Hollywood’s heroic nerds gone, and what does it mean for future generations if these niche role models are no longer represented?

Continue reading “Ask Hackaday: What Ever Happened To The Hero Nerd?” →

Patterns Everywhere

June 13, 2026 by Elliot Williams 23 Comments

I studied physics in college, and I’m always surprised how fundamental some of the concepts are. Take waves for example. You really wouldn’t expect the same underlying concept to be at work on surface of a pond, the string of a guitar, light passing through two slits, and then in the probabilistic behavior of electrons orbiting inside nuclei. But here we are, in a world filled with wave-like phenomena.

What little control theory I know, I’ve learned in the school of hard knocks. But it’s equally amazing that the same basic concepts govern the tuning of car shock absorbers, PID controllers, active audio filters, and other more complex systems where feedback matters. Crucial in all of these systems is the judicious balance of amplification and damping.

And last week on vacation, learning to drive a covered wagon pulled by a heavy draft horse, I saw the same patterns again. The horse likes to pull, and when the wagon comes over the crest of the top of a hill, it starts to roll forward into his harness, pushing him from behind. This makes the horse uneasy, and he slows down, the wagon pushes him harder, and positive feedback gets out of control.

The man who was teaching me to drive the wagon said, “it’s not like a car” in that you don’t tap the brakes to slow down and then let go. Rather, you hold on the brakes for a lot longer than you think is necessary – until the horse tells you that he feels like pulling again – and then you let up only a tiny bit at a time. Otherwise, you end up in the under-damped case, where you let the wagon go too much, it slows the horse, you slam the brakes, the horse pulls hard, and you let up on the brakes, and the cycle continues anew.

What he meant by “not like a car” was that the brakes aren’t just slowing down the wagon, they’re adding damping to keep the horse-wagon system from oscillating. Once that clicked in my mind, everything was smooth sailing. After a couple of days, I even started adding some feed-forward to my mental PID controller, letting the brakes go a little bit more when the horse was approaching the bottom of a hill, and he obviously wanted to pick up a little more speed before the grade ahead.

The horse seemed happy that I was finally getting it, but I don’t think he had any understanding of tuning PID loops. He did have me pondering, on a long stretch of rolling hills on a summer morning, if there were a good minimal set of patterns that explained a maximal breadth of phenomena. I’m starting with the physics of waves and the control of feedback systems, but what’s next?

Between-Device Sharing Still Sucks

May 20, 2026 by Zoe Skyforest 131 Comments

Once upon a time, computing was simple. You had files on a floppy disk. If you wanted to take them to a different computer, you ejected the disk from one machine and put it in another. It wasn’t fast, but it was easy and intuitive. Besides, you probably only had one computer of your own, anyway.

Life has since gotten a lot more complex. You’ve got a desktop, a laptop, a work laptop, your personal and business phones, and a smart watch to boot. You live amongst a swirling maelstrom of terabytes of data. Despite all the technical advances that got you here, it’s still a pain to get a file from one device to another, even when they’re sitting on the same desk. Why?!

Continue reading “Between-Device Sharing Still Sucks” →