As far as understand, it would make no difference to the operation of an SRAM if you mixed up the order of the address or data pins.  E.g.   Removable non-volatile chips, such as PROMs and EEPROMs, have address and data pin numberings defined, as they need to be consistent across programmers and application circuits.  Why do SRAM chips have numbered data and address pins?  Is there any operation impact if I swap address pins around to make a PCB easier to route?
I am trying to route a pic32 chip to a  chip and having a bit of a hard time getting all 17 address lines and all 8 data lines connected. I am trying to tie the first 16 address pins to portB pins 0-15 and the data pins to portD 0-7.  After thinking about it for a while I realized that I am probably making my life more difficult by trying to line up rb0 with a0, rb1 with a1, etc. All I really want to be able to do is write a 16 bit value to portB and have the majority of the address loaded and ready. If I make pin assignments based on ease of routing, the logical address will be different between the mcu and the ram, but it should at least be consistent. Since nothing else needs to communicate with the RAM, I don't think it will be a problem if the mcu asks for address 0x101 and the RAM gives it address 0x110.   However, I wonder if it is a good idea. If there is some structure internal to the RAM designed to make sequential reads more efficient, or something like that, then I may want to go to the trouble of routing them 1:1. The pins arrangement on both chips fees somewhat random to me, so it would make it a lot easier on me if I could ignore the particular numbers. Is there any good reason why I should or should not do that?
New to both Ruby and Rails but I'm book educated by now (which apparently means nothing, haha).  I've got two models, Event and User joined through a table EventUser  class User &lt; ActiveRecord::Base   has_many :event_users   has_many :events, :through =&gt; :event_users end  class EventUser &lt; ActiveRecord::Base   belongs_to :event   belongs_to :user    #For clarity's sake, EventUser also has a boolean column "active", among others end  class Event &lt; ActiveRecord::Base   has_many :event_users   has_many :users, :through =&gt; :event_users end   This project is a calendar, in which I have to keep track of people signing up and scratching their name out for a given event. I figure the many to many is a good approach, but I can't do something like this:  u = User.find :first active_events = u.events.find_by_active(true)   Because events don't actually HAVE that extra data, the EventUser model does.  And while I could do:  u = User.find :first active_events = [] u.event_users.find_by_active(true).do |eu|   active_events &lt;&lt; eu.event end   This seems to be contrary to "the rails way".  Can anyone enlighten me, this has been bugging me for a long time tonight (this morning)? QGIS calculates main soil type of polygons from another polygon layer Does anyone know?  And a bigger question is what happens when you encounter this maximum? Is this the same number with other Windows OSs such as Vista, XP etc.? What causes close votes to be annotated with "(deleted)"? Dell Vostro 5490 no WIFI in Ubuntu 18.04 newenvironment: error with \begin{align} and \end{align} In the example below, an error is caused by \begin{align} and \end{align} but I do not see why:  \documentclass{book} \usepackage{amsmath} \newenvironment{subalign}{\begin{subequations}\begin{align}}{\end{align}\end{subequations}} \begin{document} \begin{subalign}      a&amp;=b\\     &amp;=b \end{subalign} \end{document} UTF-8 -> ASCII in C language Where can I ask a question about finding general software that meets certain requirements? I have a list of requirements for a program, but I don't know what program meets these criteria. That's about general-purpose software, for example, not a programming IDE or statistical workbench, questions about which would certainly go to respective sites.  Is this question appropriate on Stack Overflow? Where should I ask about it? On Super User or elsewhere? If $G$ is a compact topological group, how to show that a finite index subgroup of $G$ is open ? I really don't know where/how to start...  PS : I precise that by "compact" I mean that it is hausdorff and that any recovering of $G$ by open sets has a finite sub-recovering (sorry if I wasn't unclear) Where did they go / do they went? Where did they go?   Where do they went?   Can you please advise which of above forms is correct?  I'm pretty sure that first one is fine but wondering about second one.   Can I use a second form as well or it's incorrect? What's up with Vic? In the TV series Glitch, we see several people returning from the dead.  We see Vic, a police officer,      getting in a car accident and seemingly .   Afterwards, he behaves very strange. He searches for the doctor and the risen, whom he seems to know a lot about, sometimes even more than they know themselves.      He rekills Maria by breaking her neck.   And he threatens the other risen.  Most of the risen, especially those that have been dead longer, have some difficulty remembering their past lives. Vic on the other hand, seems to remember fine but to have a complete change of character instead.   Why is he after the other risen? How does he know so much about them? Why did he have such a change of character?     Yes, these are several questions, but they are closely related, so I opted to ask them in one question. Deleting multiple elements from a list Customize equation numbering for Equation environment? I want to manually label equation number ? For example I want to label this equation 3.1 instead of (1) which automatically pops up. Is it also possible in split environment as well or not ?      \begin{equation}     \log \mu_{ijk}= \lambda + \lambda_i ^I + \lambda_j ^J+\lambda_k ^K+\lambda_{ij} ^{IJ}+\lambda_{ik} ^{IK}+\lambda_{jk} ^{JK}+\lambda_{ijk} ^{IJK} \label{eq:3.1}     \end{equation} Partition of N into infinite number of infinite disjoint sets? Is it possible to have a countable infinite number of countable infinite sets such that no two sets share an element and their union is the positive integers? Question:  Let ${a_n}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{R}$ with $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=a$  Prove that  $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n^2=a^2$  Attempt: Without using any properties of limits (this is a question in a section of the book that came before any list of any limit theorems)  By definition:  $|a_n^2-a^2|&lt;\epsilon$   $|a_n^2-a^2|$ $\leq$ $|(a_n+a)(a_n-a)|$ $\leq$ $|(a_n+a)| |(a_n-a)|$ $\leq$   $(|a_n | + |a|)(|a_n -a|)$ $&lt;$ $\epsilon$  And since I know that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=a$, I'll subsitute that in for $|a_n|^2$ as $a^2$   $\therefore$ $a^2-|a|^2 &lt; \epsilon$ which is true since $a^2-|a|^2$ in my case.  I wonder if this is a possible solution? A proof for the inequality $\sum_{i=0}^{t-2}{\frac{1}{t+3i}} \leq \frac{1}{2} $ for all $t \geq 2$ I'm struggling with proving the following inequality: $$\sum_{i=0}^{t-2}{\frac{1}{t+3i}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$$  for all $t \geq 2$. I think it is monotonic non-increasing in $t$, which would suffice.  Thanks in advance! Form inside a table What term refers to those who adhere to scientism? Can a single PS Plus subscription be used on two different profiles on the same PS4? Both my girlfriend and I play on the PS4 at home, so there are 2 profiles on PS4. When we set our profile in PS4, we set the console as the primary console.  Now we want to buy PSN Plus subscription, and I want to know if the same subscription can be used in both profiles, or  only in one.   In case the same subscription can be used in both profiles, how can we set it up? Or is automatic? Get rid of the question ban on Meta; suspend actively harmful users manually appears to have been question banned because of two unpopular Meta suggestions. (He says so in )  Look at the two contributions that appear to have gotten him banned. Like those of many others, they may not be of perfect quality, but they are not actively harmful to the site, either. As it stands, you can get question blocked on Meta simply for asking questions that aren't popular with the Meta crowd.  Why does the team insist on keeping the question ban active on Meta?  Why can't real problem users be dealt with through manual moderator action? Don't tell me it's a problem of scale; as far as I can see, actually toxic users are very rare on Meta.  People will frequently complain that Meta actively discourages the expression of unpopular viewpoints and suggestions. With the threat of question bans in place, I find those complaints difficult to refute. I hate that.