Talk:Limor Fried

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born?[edit]

Usually this type of biography article has the birth date of the person. --95.34.149.128 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was 31 in 2010 according to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/adafruit-targets-tinkerers-with-open-source-electronics-kits.html (ref name = Kinect) Jonpatterns (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Kinect Project[edit]

The open Kinect project section seems to have the wrong tone. As far as I understand it the earlier comments assumed cracking, whereas the more positive comments were more informed about the purpose - reverse engineering the data that the Kinect spat out, not the Kinect itself. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One needs to be a computer scientist to be a "woman computer scientist"[edit]

Take a look at the Computer scientists category to see the definition we're currently using. By that definition, Fried is not a computer scientist. (For reference, I don't have a problem with changing the category itself into something more inclusive; she just doesn't fit until that happens) One could probably add other (more suitable) categories, like programmer/entrepreneur/etc. 139.57.240.18 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From her resume ( http://www.ladyada.net/media/pub/resume.pdf ): "Masters of Engineering in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering". I don't know what the definition on wikipedia is, but this sounds pretty computer-scientific to me. C0NPAQ (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an engineer, I see that we aren't scientists... this may enlighten others http://www.funnyflamingo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mad-engineers.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.19.125 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To earn her MIT degrees in EECS, Ladyada definitely studied Computer Science in depth, but her work focus isn't really in that theory-based specialty. Her work is primarily in Electronic and Computer Engineering, including complex embedded computer systems. She works fluently in both the analog and digital hardware domains, as well as in software engineering. There's no shame in calling her an engineer and not a scientist, and I think if you look at her website and published interviews you will find that she proudly considers herself an engineer. "Spectators" often conflate science and engineering because the fields overlap considerably, but practitioners know that there is a wide spectrum of knowledge and work. Roughly speaking, scientists figure out how things work, and engineers build things and systems. Engineers are part of the "Maker culture", and Ladyada is one of the leaders in that area. I know whereof I speak, since I also have an MIT EECS degree, and have worked as a computer and electronics engineer for many years. Reify-tech (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precision needed / Adafruit[edit]

"She is also the engineer behind the electronic kits sold by the company." seems to be a very broad claim, considering 95% they sell is basically any open source project with an adafruit logo printed on. Lpfleischmann (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lpfleischmann: Agreed, I've changed it to the following - Jonpatterns (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The company designs and resells open source electronic kits mainly for the hobbyist market.

She is the chief engineer and for circuit board projects designed by the company, she does > 98% with some assistance from other company engineers. Unlike some companies who sell kits manufactured by others, Adafruit sells relatively few kits manufactured by others as most of the kits they have are their own design and manufactured in-house. Kittyba (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adafruit Article?[edit]

Why does Adafruit itself not have an article but is part of this article? Is Adafruit Industries not itself notable? Does anyone know if this has been discussed previously and if so where? Zell Faze (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should think Adafruit Industries is notable enough to have its own article, I can't find any previous discussion. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While although Adafruit Industries is a great company, and certainly popular within certain circles, I'm not sure it necessarily qualifies as "notable".
My suggestion would be to address the actual notability guidelines for organizations and companies here.
In addition to the lede, I'd also suggest bouncing down to the primary criteria section.
From a cursory glance of Google News (obviously a more in-depth survey would be necessary before dismissing Adafruit as a topic), most of the hits seem to include Adafruit only tangentially. For example, they're looking at products that happen to be available on Adafruit, or otherwise announcing them. Sometimes they're dealing with interesting electronics projects done by third parties who have since had their tutorials hosted there.
That is to say, from first glance, most sources don't seem to be about Adafruit. Of course, there's also always the occasional conference, etc. that includes a mention, but that's usually in a context like (for example), "We also hear from Becky Stern, Designer at Adafruit Industries...". (Again, not about Adafruit)
So, I guess there are two questions:
  1. Obviously the notability guidelines are primarily intended to be rules of thumb; something can be notable even if it doesn't fit within the strict definitions. Is this one of those cases?
  2. Other than the fact that Adafruit exists, what sort of information would one expect to see in such an article?
As an 'anonymous ip', it's not like I'll be writing it either way. Still, if you are interested in writing such an article, you may find it helpful to address these sorts of concerns first, if only to help organize material. 139.57.240.18 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I think I seriously overthought that. If there's enough material for a separate Adafruit article, then that'd probably take care of the notability part, eh? So I guess only the second question is valid. What would go into it other than "Adafruit exists, now here's a link to Limor Fried"? The kits? Their learning resources? 139.57.240.18 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we havent enough information about company Adafruit Industries to write an seperate article. Nevertheless I think, that is false to make a redirect from "Adafruit Industries" to Limor Fried, because the article of Limor Fried has no information, which describes the company of Adafruit. I think it is better to delete this redirect and to leave the Article "Adafruit industries" empty, until someone wants to write the article. Greetings from Germany and Merry Christmas! Thirdechelon (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thirdechelon: Greetings. In the section Career and recognition the article mentions that Fried founded Adafriut in 2005. Not much but still better than nothing. Therefore, in my opinion "Adafruit industries" should redirect here. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limor Fried. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limor Fried. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Limor_Fried&oldid=1207311109"