>>12945473>Completely retarded.Embedded is used pretty wildly but the sentiment isn't wrong. There are general trends as to who does what job, but it comes down to what you want to self study and what disciplines you want to practice. A lot of what you learn in systems CS and architecture is learning how to design architecture with the high level in mind. This clears up a lot of problems and motivates a lot of low level problems. The sheer value you can get by inserting an extra cache and then using it cleverly (ie applying algorithmic intuition from the CS side) is massive.
I know a more the decent amount of CS majors who got into embedded problems. I know more EE's who got into it, but they generally work at the same type of jobs with similar aptitudes.
Remember that the world isn't split up into webdevs and embedded programming. A lot of the relevant principles and design ethos between EE and CS is exactly the same in embedded. It's just that the hardware has a lot of explicit components like registers to work with, not that the fundamental problems are that much harder. Limited timers, tighter constraints, etc and working with signal converters. The relevant EE is important but not anything you can't pick up, despite the EE reeeing about their degree being hard. No I'm not kidding. Most of EE is dumbing down the core physics when possible.
Also for as much as they brag about being able to do it, I know from experience both in interviews and from my peers that EE and even many CE's fucking suck at solving problems algorithmically, much less developing robust software systems with those precious years of engineering systems classes. You guys talk about the triviality of black boxes and using libraries, but you can't do any nontrivial piece of software worth a fuck en masse. But what do I know? I'm not even in software.
>t. EECS robotics master race 
