>>13162101In the industry: Take some well known solutions from math and physics to some “fundamental” problem. Identify / analyze the base components using blackboxing and design them using classic techniques. Try and integrate them together into a product people can use.
Most of your time is spent actually thinking of designs rather than science. Science is there to make sure your tinkering works out and you have the background knowledge to optimize things.
In research: you are an applied scientist who develops math, physics, methods, prototypes, etc.. to “fundamental” problems that haven’t been solved yet.
Here you use a lot of science but your work is farther removed from things people have in their hands.
>which ones are memesThey’re all important and interesting in many ways. I think the memeist is software engineering but not because you don’t engineering in software. It’s that many jobs that aren’t software engineering call themselves engineering because they loosely follow the processes. This is probably because software is new and not as mature on the whole as other forms of engineering, which are hundreds of years old.
However, there should be no doubt cryptosystems design and real time flight software is all engineering. But doing front end or webdev or clerical work to make code run isn’t engineering. Picrel is what real software engineering is trying to implement, where the really hard part of the problem is being able to make this cipher circuit in a secure fashion (ie obscure all revealing info that could show up in a register dump / cryptanalysis.
>t. EE who does security stuff in hardware and software 
