I've also gone this route. A little board in tmux I pull up with a key combination, some indicators of activity / needs me to take a look at it and some background machinery / limitations as my work is systematically: open a worktree, define separate correctness and performance tests, run the latter on a chosen cluster, and then eventually open a PR. Testing is handled via another vibecoded regression tool/databse. The agents mostly use the board commands for syncing, rebasing & pushing, etc. To avoid errors. The PR hierarchy is encoded in it. Very convenient for me, probably useless to most!
Basically you don't need to think much about the computer itself, unlike C or C++. Just pass in your arrays or pointers (everything is passed by reference anyways), crunch numbers, and it'll be about as optimized as carefully __restrict__ laden C code.
There's also fewer traps to fall in than C++ which is elephant sized in scope to Fortran's mouse.
> Normal finite elemts does not care. The mesh ist just put on your 3d body that can be an stl or a step or whatever. The FEM only knows the nodes and nothing else. The mesh geometry is completely separate from the CAD file.
I have to disagree somewhat. Engineers rarely run a single simulation, rather they do convergence studies. For some problems, it might be fine to refine while keeping the same geometry (since you have no arbitrarily accurate continuous representation), but not all.
So, yes, you can run toy simulations on any mesh, but I don't think any serious shop will consider a workflow where CAD is completely inaccessible.
There are some ways around it but the cure might be worse than (or rather just as sophisticated as) the poison. Like extrapolating what the geometry might be with high-order elements or fitting NURBs.
That was not my point. Sorry if I did not make it clear enough: The point is, the mesh is a completely separate entity. It is an attempt to make a copy of the CAD geometry.
Whereas with IGA you can actually calculate on the CAD geometry itself (at least for easy geometry without trimmed surfaces).
You can find NURBs fitting in decades old textbooks (such as "The NURBs book"), but you have to be aware that this is an approximation problem as the only exact fitting is the one where the output is the input.
Also prone to robustness and quality issues. You're better off outputing a BREP directly.
It takes a lot of trust (on both sides) and complexity to establish a working relationship across two jurisdictions, if at all possible.
For instance, what labor laws apply? And who enforces them? And how, given parties in two different countries?
Does the company want to subject itself to some arbitrary country’s tax man or labor law enforcer prosecutions? Does the employee want to work under effectively zero labor protection? Possibly, but rarely.
It’s not even always possible, it’s very complicated to work remotely in France, for instance. The state cracks down on one person one client companies, and EoRs beyond being impractical (as they must adhere to drastic labor laws compared to the US) are in a legal gray zone.
The laws of the worker's locality is generally how it works. In the film industry, a production company based in LA might do a shoot in NYC- they have to follow NYC's labor laws since that's where the workers are and the work is being done.
The workers at the home base in LA have the LA laws applied to them.
Exactly, and those answers are why it’s a hurdle and a leap of faith.
The company has to adhere to labor laws in foreign countries (most likely plural if this is a general policy). That’s quite the overhead and opens you up to legal trouble.
The employee has to trust their government can prosecute or otherwise coerce a foreign company with no entity on their territory (otherwise they’d just get hired normally through the subsidiary).
LA and NJ remain two states of a common country and I'm sure that simplifies a lot of things.
Although none of this applies if the company is a multinational with offices in the employee’s country. But then that is offshoring rather than remote work.
Fascinating work and write-up. This is like a vignette of France: weaponized mauvaise-foi, sacred institutions and, more generally, some remnants of an aristocratic hierarchy, and also probably a lot of honest technical incompetence.
According to my brother, who has had extensive dealings with them, accountability to the public at large is anathema to French civil servants. Instead, they consider themselves beholden to the professional standards and administrative hierarchy of their respective institutions.
Open book need not be easier, it entirely depends on the exam.
This was too long ago for me to remember the details of but, just making an example here, we might have had a course on homogeneization of elliptic problems using a model PDE with a div(A grad u) term throughout, and then the exam was about a PDE with a curl(A curl u) and some other added terms.
Notes carry the method and theoretical tools but you then still need to apply them to a new problem.
So, if anything, our open book exams were harder and a better test of understanding and mastery. You couldn’t rote your way into a good grade.
reply