Joku on arkistoinut archive.org:iin kasan vanhoja suomalaisia lehtiä (ja kuvastoja) ja uteliaisuudesta satuin selaamaan Hymy nro. 8/1967.

Tämä lukijaposti pysäytti aika lailla siihen paikkaan (muistaen että homoseksuaalisuus oli laitonta vuoteen 1971 asti), ja haluan sen jakaa ihan vain koska feels.

https://archive.org/details/hymy-lehti-no-8-1967/page/63/mode/1up?view=theater

Edge (literally) cases: Are these headers through-hole parts*? Are they on the front or back of the board?

(* this is what made me think to make this post... I based the footprint on a through-hole one and didnt change that so kicad still classifies them as through-hole... but there are no holes anymore, just pads :D.)

A little #electronics question (and/or a teaser lol) here. Do you think I'd get in trouble for doing a double footprint like this?

We're talking about a chip that talks USB 2.0 and PCI and is available in those two packages (TQFP-144 and a FBGA one).
I'm thinking the BGA one wouldnt care about this (obviously-ish), but for the TQFP it'd be ... sub-optimal, but my gut feeling says it'd still work (even with almost-144 little 6mm-ish stub antennas under it lol).

(And yeah, I bet you can identify the chip from what i said, but I'll leave it out for funsies :P)

No seth, I do not "appreciate the challenge" when you add a new dependency to kicad.

The dependency might be necessary, but really, this attitude bothers me...