But that's by design, while this is a convention problem

Turns out Benjamin Franklin had it right, and it was this time traveler that caused him to flip it to the wrong direction.

Man, this one is a good one.

Always love their comics but since I don't know crap about this stuff it's amusing to see how this one is relevant to a meme. Wish I knew more but only so much I've learned so far. One day perhaps but not today.

Electricity is not a real-concept, it is a qualitative aspect and the elec-root is what defines that aspect. There is no such thing as electricity, but there is current and in analog current, those particles flow as historically, that was the first convention for current. Also, electromotive force is what causes the movement of electrons, the magnetic field is just a componenent and does not induce EMR and the energy generated by it is akin to mechanical "work" caused by kinetic forces. It boggles my mind how even modern electrical engineers sometimes get this wrong.

The only correct answer 👆🏻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY

You mean to tell me that there are people out there whose job it is to design lunatics?

That's fucking awesome. Like a real-life comic book author.

You forgot science enthusiasts who are desperately trying to impress people.

It's also useful to think of the "ground" plane as a sort of well of potential charger carriers that the conventional current model overlooks. Aside from simultaneously visualising what's happening inside simple ICs like BJTs / MOSFETs and the circuit diagrams I've found it a useful way for checking for common mode noise in circuit and PCB design.

I guess this makes me a lunatic? Don't know until we test it;

Someone give me an ~~asylum~~ makerspace to takeover!

Man, they have positrons and negatrons now? The Transformers franchise is wild.

I have a feeling that in antimatter circuits the positrons would move the same way as the electrons in equivalent matter circuits

All words are just made up.

The physicists are absolutely right. However, I reject their reality and substitute my own

Uhhhh......pornhub is that way ----->

Since they are quite good opposites, the smart people who figured how all this worked decided on that and we stuck with it based on convention. Like how "Alice" and "Bob" were used in Computer Science since they are generic names beginning with the first two letters of the alphabet (it could have easily been any A and B name, but this is the convention!)

Similar can be said for magnets, the "North" and "South" poles are good opposites. If other people started the trend, we could have easily gotten something else, but this is the convention.

Guessing here, but +/- is good for describing them as binary opposites as that system already exists. This is a good thing assuming there are two types of charge/pole which behave in opposite ways (Eg move differently in a field). It's also just good to use numbers so that we can describe the amount of + and the amount of -, which numbers already do. It also allows us to describe neutral as neither + nor -, but 0. Again, we already have a scaffold there for numbers and it's easy to copy it for new things when that makes sense.

Magnets.

If there's no field there's 0, if there's a magnetic field clockwise it makes a positive charge, if there's a magnetic field rotating counterclockwise it makes a negative charge,

Likewise if there's a positive charge it makes a clockwise magnetic field and if there's a negative charge it makes a counter clockwise field. (I may be backwards +/- clockwise/counter clockwise, something about the thumb on my left hand..., but really it's all arbitrarily named, but the reason you just say negative or positive is that those are scalable measures, you can't have half a Bob or 2 Alice. )