Descobre o que os alunos realmente pensam sobre as tuas cadeiras

Theoretical Classes → Professor Luís Veiga clearly explains each topic and you can freely ask him any question. Lab Classes → My TA was Afonso Fernandes, although he might appear to be a bit shy he explains and helps with the project a lot, would definitely recommend him. The lab classes themselves were initially focused on the 4 lab worksheets (1 per week). Then the statement came out in the beginning of the 3rd week and then you can of course opt to either focus on the project or the lab worksheets (all of the worksheets are useful for the project though). Project → The project was the same as the previous year's. Capture some workload instrumentation metrics from the three available workloads (the workloads are the only thing that seems to differ from year to year), create your own loadbalancer(LB) and autoscaler(AS), request EC2 instance metrics from AWS, (e.g. CPU usage every 1-minute) and use these plus the workload instrumentation metrics to distribute the workload requests that have just arrived to the LB (or distribute the ones you already have in your LB queue) and to scale up or down. Checkpoint (Optional - 15% of the Project Grade - used solely if it helps improving it): For the checkpoint the most important thing was to have your instrumentation metrics already chosen, working and saved somewhere (DynamoDB or on a local filesystem file).\ \ Opt to choose metrics that capture both memory and CPU pressure (e.g. memory accesses(LOADs and STOREs) and instruction count).\ \ Be sure you choose metrics that do not add too much overhead - e.g. create a test suite in which you compare instrumented vs not instrumented workloads and compare how the wall-clock time were affected between different metrics.\ \ Also be sure that this metric can actually determine the amount of work to be done with some good accuracy level, do not choose metrics that have a very low overhead but are trash at determining how "heavy" a workload is. You will probably create a linear regression model that translates workload input parameters to instrumentation metrics, show how accurate it is.\ \ Additionally, be sure your chosen metrics are not too correlated, if they are, discard one of them, probably one that has the most overhead.\ \ At this stage it is not mandatory to have your LB or AS already semi-functional, you can simply demonstrate the correct capturing of metrics using AWS' LB and AS - you need to create a simple video demonstrating the current state. Final delivery: Another video and report are needed, be sure to include images/graphs of your metrics tests/architecture/flow, it helps with getting a good report grade. The video must show: the AS scaling up and down -> possibly by creating/destroying more than one worker instance (depends on the amount of queued/recently incoming load) or always one if you do not have the time to implement fancy logic the LB actually routing requests to different worker machines, depending on the overall machine load - should I pack incoming workload requests to save on costs and to be able to scale down? or should I distribute incoming requests to help with latency by not oversubscribing a single machine? DynamoDB with workload instrumentation records and their input parameter AWS Lambdas being used to handle some of the requests - are all machines fully loaded and does my queue have requests? if so, I should probably send these requests to a AWS lambda since the time it takes to boot up another EC2 worker instance takes longer than the lambdas take to run boot up and run my workload, and this waiting + EC2 boot up time will then be most of my request latency the in-memory instrumentation metrics cache being used - if you have one the online machine learning/linear regression model being re-trained with online (newly collected) data - if you end up implementing this \ Paper Presentation → Complete waste of time, mostly good grades though. Exam → Multiple-choice with two open ended questions. It seems like an open ended Map-Reduce question is always included. Not hard at all. As said in other comments, there is a lot of focus on the virtualisation part (at least half of the theoretical classes), which IMO was probably the most fun part of the course since you dive deep into how and why stuff is done and how it was optimised.\ \ When it comes to the cloud part, FaaS optimisations were also nice to learn about, plus how cloud storage works when it comes to the distributed aspect, which was a recap of DAD.\ \ I felt like Azure, GAE, Map-Reduce, Stream Processing and the very last theoretical lecture about data center design were probably the most boring parts. Probably because you do not dive that deep and there is also less to understand and more to just memorise - e.g. I do not feel the need to know which specific GAE file you need to use to configure X or Y, that the /temp directory is the only one you can write to or how it differs in terms of pricing when compared to Azure or AWS.

Theoretical Classes → Professor Sérgio Guerreiro explains the topics clearly and has absolutely no problem answering any doubt you might have. Practical Classes → Professor Flávio Martins is ALWAYS very enthusiastic when explaining ANY topic (he knows a lot about a lot of topics, and loves teaching/explaining them during the classes) and sometimes, maybe even most of the times, tends to steer away from the classes' main goal, so you MUST interrupt him. Anyway, I had lots of fun during his classes and learned a lot about side topics as well. There's also a detailed, step-by-step guide covering all the needed tools and frameworks, so attending the lab classes in person isn't really necessary. Project: Sprint 1: The main goal was delivering a mostly fully developed set of microservices (mostly simple CRUDs per microservice), a correctly deployed Kafka cluster and some sort of testing (unitary with Junit or integration tests, e.g. done with bash/python scripts). It was not hard and you had plenty of time. Sprint 1 Feedback: It seems like both Professors were overworked during this period, sadly the feedback came later than expected and without much detail. Sprint 2: The main goal was creating BPMN processes which themselves call the previously developed, pretty simple, microservice endpoints, so that you can create business logic out of that. You can change and improve your delivered Sprint 1's code/report/tests for Sprint 2. Overall it just consumes a lot of time, especially sprint 2, since it sucks working with Camunda, you never know what variables you have available in the current scope/pool (there is no autocomplete for even that) and the UI also kinda sucks for debugging, testing the processes is also slow. \ The project requirements, when it comes to features, are not that many, HOWEVER, that was probably the most confusing statement I have ever read compared to all other statements for all my other projects I had during this year.\ \ It seemed like it was a ok-ish attempt at using ChatGPT to change the previous year's statement with some other business domain and the result was bloated and inconsistent. Both professors help with clarifying any doubts you might have on the project, there is even a Moodle page you can (and should) use in which the theoretical professor answers promptly. But the answers sometimes, sadly, are not to the point.\ \ The comment below this one says that you have to redeploy the whole project a lot of times. You do not. If there is a change in a microservice, SSH to the already up EC2 instance, pull the new docker image and re-run the container, takes 2 seconds (create a bash script for this). You can also redeploy Camunda business processes to a live Camunda instance without having to shutdown either Camunda or the EC2 instance it runs on. The only thing that takes its sweet time to deploy (the first time) is MySQL RDS database. Always takes at least 5 minutes, but you can just leave it running and delete the data or swap schemas while it is up. Two MAPs → You can take all the notes you want (in paper, printed or written by hand). There is not that much theory to know. Very easily doable. Note: questions might come up regarding the previously mentioned lab guide. Regardless, I had my fun using and learning about AWS, Terraform, Packer, Docker, Kafka and Quarkus. I would definitely recommend the subject.\ I just wish the project statement was a bit less vague and that we could get rid of Camunda, and instead use Kafka as a way for microservices to communicate.

A avaliação consiste num exame (com consulta) e numa monografia (um powerpoint) acerca de um tópico proposto pelo professor ou pelo aluno. Todo o material necessário para o exame são os slides disponibilizados pelo professor, que podes levar para o exame. O exame não foge muito dos exercícios feitos em aula, basicamente tens uma síntese e tens que identificar ácidos, bases, agentes oxidantes, reagentes perigosos, etc. No entanto os slides têm listas com estes compostos então é importante ter estas listas organizadas antes do exame. Para fazer a monografia é necessário escolher um tema, de seguida fazer uma pesquisa por artigos científicos acerca do tema (esta pesquisa é também avaliada) e depois é fazer o powerpoint, com pouco texto (apenas o mais importante, nada de texto corrido) e com imagens, algo muito visual. O professor explica muito bem e gostei muito das aulas. O professor também mostra-se disponível para ajudar no que for preciso.

A cadeira consiste num relatório a pares sobre dois sistemas de controlo (com cálculos feitos em excel) e num relatório acerca do laboratório a ser entregue no final do semestre, com entrega (opcional) de partes do projeto de forma a receber feedback dos professores. No final também têm discussão acerca do projeto todo. O que eu fiz foi entregar as partes do projeto nas datas sugeridas pelos professores, não só para receber o feedback mas também porque ajuda a não deixar tudo para o fim, e o relatório foi feito nas 2 semanas de férias do Natal e Ano Novo. No entanto o relatório acabou por ter umas 80 páginas, além do excel com o sistema de controlo que também é bastante grande, e como a única entrega obrigatória é no final do semestre é muito fácil deixar tudo para o fim mas por favor não o façam! Os professores são muito prestáveis e disponibilizam muitos materiais na página da cadeira para ajudar no projeto. As aulas são algo importantes porque a cadeira é muito diferente de todas as outras em termos de conteúdo (A teoria de controlo vem de eletrotécnica e apesar de obviamente ser aplicada a engenharia química é muito diferente da matéria de outras cadeiras do mestrado, com muita matemática e equações diferenciais.) e é difícil de entender apenas lendo os slides, no entanto a bibliografia contém livros (facilmente obtidos online :)) que explicam tudo muito bem. Achei a cadeira interessante mas também sei que muita gente não gostou.

Really boring class, you dont't learn anything and its a waste of time. They expect you to run HF strategies on excel

Ignore the comment bellow, if you studied at least 2 days for the exam you got at least a 16. I would recommend the following structure for grading(the class decides and the professor approves): Grading recommendation: Exam 50% (MC questions can only have 4 possible answers with only one correct one, no negative points on wrong answers) Attendance 20% (2/4 classes needed to be attended to get 20 Points, checked by the professor at the beginning of the class) Take-Home Quizzes 30% (only the best out of three quizzes count, each quiz can be attempted twice with no time limit and the higher grade of each attempt counts, no negative points on wrong answers) EXTRA POINTS: Extra Point on final grade: 2-3 Page essay on a relevant topic of the course submitted before the last class.

The class sometimes is ok, but overall, if you're not portuguese, you can't really network with the guest speakers, making the class a bit useless. The group assignment is a mess, its like 8 students doing an huge assignment at the same time. Good luck forming a good group. The exam is extremely easy.

Easiest course ever, is not even a true course. You just spam AI to do the assignments and learn by heart on the exam and put questions of the mock on your cheat sheet.

Just learning by heart for the exam and using your intuition, grading is not heavy. Altough, for the group assignment I would recommend choosing a venture capital firm since they consider the valuation as "art" and give good grades for everything, while if you take a PE firm they will F!@# you up. Overall, easy 18.

The course with Rui Silva gives worse grades on assignments and has a harder exam when compared to the other professor(S2).

Your final grade consists of you lab work (50%) and final exam (50%). The lab work is chill and interesting (once a week, 3-4 labs in total). The professor will give you solutions to previous exams so it is very easy to study. I went to maybe one or two classes but I still think classes are really worth it.

My best choice so far. If you’re interested in GPS or GNSS in general this will cover all foundations. The classes are interesting and the professor is always available. One of the classes scheduled within a week is just meant for you to study and allows you to talk to the professor if you get stuck. During the assessments you can use your previously made code library. The recovery exam is a little different and is completely manual - no computer, no code. Both assessment formats follow the solved problems included in the provided materials.

The course consist of lectures including discussions, a simulation, a report and in the end the exam. The simulation itself is quite fun and really fosters competition in a playful way, the report afterwards is written about that simulation and the decisions take. Then the discussionns in the class you assign yourself to and then prepare, the problem here is you can only get 18 points max, which is unfortunate. Also the professor seems to care less about individual opinions and more about getting over his point of view. Materials for the discussions are provided as well as additional readings. The exam was very doable, a mix of multiple choice questions and open questions. Overall I’d say it’s a recommendation, but getting a top grade is a little difficult. A tip for the simulation, as it is not graded don’t focus too much on being the best but rather to have something to discuss and present in the report.

Esta cadeira é a continuação da cadeira CMN-O que é dada pelo mesmo professor (que se vai reformar este ano). Existe muito material repetido de uma cadeira para a outra (estimação de estado, noções de controlabilidade e observabilidade, controlo linear-quadrático, etc...), a única coisa realmente diferente é uma abordagem do algoritmo de MPC, que é um dos algoritmos mais úteis no controlo. É pena que seja pouco abordado na cadeira porque é realmente muito importante. O laboratório não é muito interessante e os professores são muito "picuinhas" na correção (i.e preocupam-se mais com um erro qualquer de notação do que com originalidade e qualidade do trabalho desenvolvido). O Exame é fácil.

This course is essentially project-based (75% of evaluation) with weekly presentations on work progression. I did the MCL (monte carlo localization) problem with the robot TB3, and I think it is one of the best (and easiest) projects to do in this course. I really recommend taking doing the experimental work early in the quarter because at the end of the quarter it can be difficult to secure a robot or to have a good rosbag without people interfering. The slides are really bad, but the book that is provided in the bibliography (probabilistic robotics) is extremely good, one of the best books I have read. It covers a lot of interesting topics and I believe that this course is a MUST for any student going into autonomous systems control.

This course can be a lot of fun if you're a creative person and are proficient with multimedia production software, but be prepared to produce an average of about three multimedia projects per week if you are aiming for a good grade (>= 17), which is considerable workload despite not seeming like it. Furthermore, the topics covered in the theoretical classes and labs have nothing to do with the absurd amount of multimedia assignments that we are expected to produce and submit on Moodle, and there is also the risk that a work will receive a poor evaluation and not be accepted, requiring changes and future resubmission. Additionally, there were weekly quizzes in the theoretical classes and weekly lab evaluations. On top of all this, you'll still have do make a final multimedia group presentation on a topic of your choice with an obligatory video recorded and edited by you. Many groups skipped the final presentation because it still required quite some work and coincided with other important deadline periods in other courses. I wouldn't recommend taking this course alongside other heavy workload courses, specially if you're not comfortable with multimedia production.

A cadeira vai sair do programa de LEEC, e ainda bem. Ainda assim, matéria desconexa. De uma semana para a outra saltávamos de diagramas e conceitos básicos para lemas e demonstrações que a maioria não percebeu. Muita gente com boa nota nos MAPs, eu inclusive, limitava-se a repetir fórmulas sem muitas vezes percebermos o propósito de tudo. Os materiais de estudo podiam ser mais completos e com resolução

Essencialmente uma cadeira de decorar alguns métodos de resolver certos exercícios, nada propriamente puxado. Um pouco mais avançado mas basicamente na continuidade da química do secundário. Tecnicamente grande parte da matéria não é aplicada no curso em geral (LEEC), salvo aspectos introdutórios de redox ou física estatística que são abordados na cadeira. Método de avaliação equilibrado entre testes de escolha múltipla, um teste sobre os labs e um exame final. O curso tinha 3 profs de teóricas diferentes, e 3 sets de PowerPoints das teóricas diferentes, o que era um pouco confuso.

Cadeira de continuidade com a matemática do secundário, especialmente a parte de cálculo diferencial. Aulas teóricas talvez devessem ter mais parte prática.

Para cadeira de matemática de 1.° ano é capaz de ser a mais abstracta à primeira vista. Professor das teóricas é professora das práticas ambos metódicos e organizados. Material da cadeira excelente, a nível de teoria e fichas/ resolução. É ideal fazer exercícios continuamente após as aulas ou perdes o ritmo

Eu considero que as fichas que foram disponibilizadas pela minha professora não eram muitos úteis no meu método de estudo. Tinham exercícios muito repetidos e que não eram parecidos com o teste. Aconselho vivamente a fazer maps de anos antigos, tentando procurar pelos maps do prof responsável.

Gostei do método de avaliação e de ensino desta cadeira. O facto de termos trabalhos práticos foi fundamental para aprendermos a trabalhar com triângulos e a aprender como aplicar os modelos.

Cadeira paradigmática para físicos. Primeiras abordagens a sério a conceitos de física importantes tais como simetrias e alguns métodos de aproximação, para além de serem explicados outros fenómenos importantes. O método de avaliação é o clássico (2 MAPS), havendo a opção de fazer um projeto computacional de natureza numérica, o que também é bastante interessante. O professor, apesar de não ser excelente, tem uma boa visão para o curso e uma estrutura já bem definida, dada a sua experiência a dar esta cadeira. Os materiais teóricos de apoio são bons, mas suponho que as séries de problemas poderiam ser um pouco melhores. De qualquer forma, recomendo que façam a cadeira se estiverem mesmo interessados em física. Caso contrário, não, uma vez que não se trata propriamente de uma cadeira casual

Very easy course. The professor is super chill, and attending the lectures is not really necessary since the slides are enough to prepare for the exam. The assignment is a group case study worth 55% of the final grade. You can choose your own group. Each group receives one out of four cases and has to answer six questions in a pptx. This is followed by a presentation where you only present two of the six questions. Assignment grades ranged from 18 to 19.5. The exam is worth only 45% of the final grade and is very easy. Most students finished within 30 minutes. It consists only of MCQs with no penalty for wrong answers, plus one very short open question. There is no mock exam, and the professor does not provide much information about the exam beforehand, but it is still straightforward. The course has a reputation among students for being easy and requiring very little work. In the bidding, T2 required around 15 bidding points, while T3 required more than 60. A final grade between 18 and 19 is definitely achievable without too much effort.

The professor is new, so the assignment (worth 30%) was a bit rough in some parts. It consisted of answering 6 questions based on 6 provided sources, with a maximum length of 4 pages. Two of the questions were not very clear, and most students struggled with them. However, the professor acknowledged this and said she would improve the assignment in future years, as this was her first time teaching the course. Assignment grades ranged from 16-18. One of a few courses were the assignment is individual work, not group work. The exam consisted of 14 MCQs and 2 open questions and was almost identical to the mock exam. There was only one calculation question, which had been shown in a lecture but was not included on the slides. Apart from that, there were no calculations or formulas to memorize. Despite the course title, the exam had very little to do with actual investments. Exam grades were similar to the assignment grades, mostly ranging from 16–18. In my opinion, attending the 3-hour weekly lecture is not really necessary. Many of the topics are repetitive, and the slides are sufficient for exam preparation

There are 2 in-class quizzes (10% in total), which are very easy. Getting a 20 is realistic as you can talk to your classmates. The group assignment is worth 30%. You cannot choose your group, and the groups are quite large (8 people), so there will likely be some free riders and coordinating everyone’s work can be challenging. Assignment grades usually range from 14-20 and depend heavily on the effort and quality of your group. Try to get reports from previous terms. The exam is open-book, and you have access to all lecture slides so you don't need to learn everything by heart. It consists of MCQs and graph interpretation questions. In our year, there was a technical issue during the exam and the slides were not available, which resulted in an average grade of 14.5. After many emails and discussions with the professor, some small adjustments were made and the final average increased to around 15.5. Still a bit unfair as not every point was addressed correctly. Apart from the exam discussion, the professor is very chill and knowledgeable. He makes the topic interesting, but he tends to talk a lot. Attending the 3-hour weekly lecture is not really necessary, except for the two lectures with the in-class quizzes and the final lecture, which is dedicated to revision and exam preparation. Because of the strict grading of the open questions in the exam and the wide range of assignment grades, this is not an easy 18. However, a high grade is definitely achievable if you put in the effort. Don’t take this course just because you are looking for easy grades. Take it if you are genuinely interested in the topic.

Weekly quizzes (10% in total) and 3 major assignments (15%, 15% and 30%). The quizzes are pretty easy and getting 18-20 is realistic. The assignments are graded more strictly, with most grades ranging from 15-19. They also require quite a bit of work, and you only get one week to complete each one. The final exam (worth only 30%) had 10 MCQs, 2 open questions, and a long case study with 7 additional open questions. It was quite challenging and very time-consuming. Nobody left before the exam time was up. The mock exam from the previous year was a good indication of what to expect. Exam grades ranged from 15-19. The course is basically a PE/VC course with a blue economy focus. It definitely helps if you’ve already taken a PE/VC course before. The professors are very good and make the lectures interesting, but be prepared for a heavy workload throughout the semester.

Same prof as in Finance and the transition to net zero. So the final exam accounts for 100% of the grade. There are no assignments, quizzes, or attendance requirements. The exam consists of 68 multiple-choice questions. You need to learn a lot amount of Islamic terminology and vocabulary. The first few lectures are the most important, after that, many of the underlying principles remain the same, so there is not a great deal of new information. Lectures are not really necessary to attend If you enjoy memorisation, are good at learning material by heart, and can envision a career involving Islamic finance or work in Islamic countries, then this is an interesting course.

The exam accounts for 100% of the grade. There are no assignments, quizzes, or attendance requirements. The exam consists of 68 multiple-choice questions, which is quite a lot. The amount of material is also challenging, with 12 slide decks averaging around 60 slides each. There are many figures, statistics, and data points to memorise, which can make the content somewhat overwhelming and confusing. Due to the 68 questions each topic will be covered in the exam so you have to know everything. In my opinion, the exam also included several questions where the professor’s personal viewpoint seemed to be the expected answer rather than the most logical or objective one. Grades ranged from 12 to 19. To some extent, success depended on luck, as there were situations where you had to make guesses and hope to select the correct answer. Can't really recommend

There are two assignments (2x max. 3 Pages) that are only research tasks and can be completed quite easily with the help of modern tools. The exam is not particularly difficult either, as it is open-book and very similar to the mock exam and past exams (the professor provided 4 past exams). If you prepare a detailed and well-structured summary, achieving an 18 is definitely possible. Attending the lectures is not really necessary and can be skipped.

Para esta cadeira de Mecânica e Ondas, acho que as aulas teóricas não valem a pena. Os testes dos anos anteriores ajudam imenso a estudar para os exames.

A quantidade de matéria entre os testes é muito desequilibrada. A professora tem uma organização muito má, o programa não é cumprido e a informação para os testes muitas vezes não está nos slides — que é o único material que temos. A componente laboratorial é noutro campus (Bobadela) e não nos avisaram disso antes. A correção dos testes demora muito tempo. A planificação das aulas não está no Fénix e a professora muitas vezes nem sabe as datas dos testes.

This course is very well-organized, and although the lecture slides are limited, the classes completely make up for it. Another major advantage is the ability to retake each test individually. ​However, grading is quite strict; there are heavy point deductions if exercises aren't solved using the exact methods taught, or if you miss small details mentioned during lectures. ​Overall, the balance is highly positive, especially since tests are graded quickly.

Eu curti bué este cálculo, acho que é o cálculo mais interessante, mas também é o mais complexo. O prof, Pedro Girão, era muito bom! Adorava as aulas teóricas dele. Não ia muito às práticas, mas acho que também eram boas. Tivemos três testes, não houve exame. As demonstrações eram 5 valores. Chumbou 1/3 das pessoas, o recurso foi difícil.

A cadeira é bem interessante. O professor é muito bom, super vale a pena ir às aulas de problemas. As teóricas também são boas, mesmo o professor tendo colocado vídeos online de aulas que ele deu há dois anos. Os exames são um pouco complicados. Este projeto é bem interessante, especialmente para quem curte aerodinâmica e simulações CFD. O professor não responde muito aos e-mails, mas se ligarem para o gabinete dele, ele é mais compreensível.

Olha, essa cadeira tem muita matéria por semana, então é super importante ir às aulas. Eu não fui e foi um erro. Tive imensa coisa para estudar em pouco tempo. A minha dica é mesmo ir às aulas e acompanhar tudo, porque aprender tanta coisa de uma vez é lixado.

O feedback geral para a cadeira de Liana é super positivo! A professora Luísa é sempre acessível e os PowerPoints são muito organizados. As aulas de laboratório são sempre divertidas, com dinâmicas engraçadas, não é só teoria pura. Tem sempre algum tipo de jogo, o que torna as aulas mais interativas.

Esta cadeira foi difícil, mas é mais fácil de aplicar o que aprendemos noutras disciplinas. Acho que foi difícil por causa do trabalho e das horas que tivemos de dedicar. Mas é mais fácil de aplicar porque foca-se mais em cálculos e não tanto na teoria como as outras cadeiras.

As aulas teóricas quase não valiam a pena. Eram muito focadas em seguir PowerPoints e não se aprendia nada de útil. O que realmente importava eram as aulas de problemas. Elas davam-nos as bases para fazer os exercícios que tínhamos de entregar. As teóricas só foram úteis mesmo no fim, antes do projeto. Aí sim, davam-nos dicas e ajudavam-nos com correções e tudo mais. Mas fora isso, o professor não fazia muita diferença, as teóricas não compensavam.

Os conteúdos da disciplina são muito interessantes, especialmente para a minha área. O problema é que o professor não era da área e não estava muito familiarizado com a matéria. Acho que isso afetou um pouco a nossa aprendizagem, mesmo que não tenha tido grande impacto nos resultados. O curso foi organizado à pressa. Fora o docente, a cadeira é de bastante interesse.

Esta cadeira é super fixe, o professor é top, super próximo dos alunos e quer mesmo que a malta aprenda. Ele dá bué de liberdade nos projetos para a gente ser criativo e expressar-nos. Não há muito apoio físico para a cadeira, eu usei IA para a programação. Foi muito bom para debater ideias com o grupo. O tempo para a cadeira é curto, só sete semanas, mas isso não é culpa do professor, é mais da estrutura do curso. Aliás, é um problema que acontece em quase todas as cadeiras. Fizemos um projeto fixe com um Arduino, medimos tensões e tal, e o segundo projeto foi mais sobre criatividade. Criamos um modelo 3D de um revólver de um jogo, com botões e joysticks, para usar como comando no PC. Funcionou super bem e ficámos orgulhosos, o professor também curtiu. É uma cadeira que nos dá espaço para a criatividade, o que é raro neste curso. O projeto final foi divertido de ver acabado e o professor incentiva a aprender por nós próprios. Recomendo a 100%!

Esta cadeira foi uma experiência interessante, mas tem alguns problemas. Primeiro, achei os critérios irrealistas. Pedem um relatório final para a minha feature mesmo antes de o professor aprovar ou de abrir um pull request. E a feature que é a aposta é de 400 linhas! Não faz sentido classificar uma feature pelo número de linhas, mas sim pela sua relevância para o projeto. Além disso, um dos professores demora imenso tempo a corrigir os trabalhos. Por causa disso, os bugs ou features acabam por ser 'snipadas' por alguém da manutenção, e a pessoa é penalizada por uma coisa que não tem culpa.

Achei o objetivo da cadeira bem interessante, tipo, entender o Web3 e blockchain e como pode ser útil no futuro. Mas a parte inicial é um pouco chata. Tipo, é importante saber o que é consenso bizantino e como usar, mas a abstração toda até chegar lá é cansativa demais para o resultado final. Podíamos focar menos na parte inicial. Tem matéria meio redundante, tipo a parte dos registos, que não faz muito sentido para o resto da cadeira. E seria bom explorar mais a fundo a parte final depois da blockchain, como smart cards. No projeto não exploramos nada disso, o que é chato porque é um período só. No geral, eu recomendo a cadeira para quem gosta de Cibersegurança e de Sistemas Distribuídos. Ela junta bem as duas coisas e culmina em blockchain, o que é um boa forma de cobrir os dois lados, especialmente para quem gosta das duas áreas. Mesmo com a parte mais maçuda no início, ainda recomendo esta cadeira para quem gosta de cibersegurança e sistemas distribuídos.

I really liked the course as it covered a lot of interesting topics for embedded programming. The project is 100% of the grade and it is time consuming, but you learn a lot. Prof Bernardino is very good and explains everything in the theoretical classes. This is a good, albeit heavy, class to take.

Terrible experience. The course is all AI bullshit and they expect you to interview 100 people during the course, as well as bi-weekly presentations, during a whole semester. The evaluation is completely arbitrary and depends if professor Luis Caldas (who is terrible btw) likes your idea or not. I would not recommend taking this course at all, and I only took it because it is mandatory for MEEC students. It is the most bullshit and nonsense course I have ever taken.

Honestly on of the best and most informative classes during my time at Nova. And definitely a must take for everyone interested in a career in VC. The workload is quite high with weekly cases, meaningful participation, two in class tests, a startup pitch, and then the exam in the end. But overall definitely worth it especially during the in-class discussions you learn a lot and the professor is very knowledgeable. If you split the cases in your group definitely still have a look so you can participate in the discussion which is, in most cases, a big part of the class.

You will be working the entire semester on this course. The homeworks require constant work. The evaluations is harsh, as a single decimal unit being work might make you lose 2 whole values in a Homework. The exam depends on the mood of the teacher, as he sometimes makes super hard questions. When it comes to classes, Professor Gil is awful, possible the worst one in the whole Bachelor's degree, he makes the theoretical classes intolerable. Professor João is a good teacher though, ans his pratical classes help understand the material, which isn't very hard to begin with

Not an hard course. While the classes aren't bad, they are taught super fast, ridiculously fast. The tests are easy, you just have to study. The project is easy too, requires a bit of work and the teachers are helpful

Overall a good course. The professor can seem harsh, but he teaches well. He is demanding though and expects us to work for our grades, which is fair. This course greatly improves upon knowledge gained in Aerodynamics I, I left it feeling like I knew 10 times more than when I finished Aero I. The exam is fair, you won't pass if you don't study, but if you apply yourself you can get a good grade. The computacional project can be hard, but if you work hard and go to the Lab classes you can understadn were to start. Ans while the professor is a no nonsense kind of guy, so don't go and ask him something like " What are the units of Cl" he will help you if you ask

Professor Lau is a good teacher in this course, better than he was in Applied Mechanics I. The course is interesting, not the most interesting but interesting nonetheless. Some concepts could be explored more in depth though, but it is understandable due to time constraints. The evaluations aren't complicated, fairly reasonable ans it is easy to have a good grade, although sometimes the teacher can go wild and make the Test really hard to understand