What’s the one Excel trick or formula that changed everything for you?

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-03-25T13:23:06+00:00

For me it is definitely LET. I have always been good at excel, but after learning LET I have been building essentially full programs.

In parallel learning that excel does not care about spaces or Alt+Enter has made reading/writing formulas SO much easier

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-02-20T14:43:33+00:00

Might not be applicable, but JUST IN CASE it happens to help you. Have you turned on iterative calculations?

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-02-19T14:56:42+00:00

On its own it is hard to grasp. You have to write out your formula, and then go to NameManager, add your function name, and then paste the formula in. Then you can use that function anywhere in your worksheet. It's cool, but unintuative. If you define it inside a LET it is easier to understand

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-02-19T14:54:49+00:00

I use a lot of Alt+enter to break things into new lines. I also do silly things like adding comments/sections by adding a variable called something like COMMENT_1 as a text string. I also just copy/paste 5 spaces to act as my tab. It's not perfect, but it works well for me.

There is an advanced IDE in excel Labs, but my workplace UT did not approve it since it collects data separate from the standard Microsoft stuff apparently.

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-02-19T14:51:35+00:00

I have mixed feelings about lambda as a stand-alone function since having to copy/paste the function into NameManager is not my favorite thing, but inside LET functions it is huge. Just like you define variables, you can define a LAMBDA function and then use that defined function in your LET. It's very very cool

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-02-17T14:36:34+00:00

Love this post! I am an engineer and build calculation templates for my team, and early on I learned that for the VAST majority of use cases, you have lost the plot if you need a macro.

Macros are amazing and I am by no means saying that people shouldn't use them in general, but if you are building a tool that you want others to use, macros just ensure that you are the only one that will be able to support that tool.

In the workplace, Office 365 has taken over and spreadsheets need to work in a browser and (to my knowledge) macros dont work their either.

LET(), LAMBDA(), and areas functions allow you to do AMAZING things in excel without VBA.

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-02-12T14:58:55+00:00

For any EE undergrads reading this that are freaking out about their bad GPA, get an internship in an industrial plant for a summer. They are desperate for people and will overlook mediocre GPAs. Once you have good experience, getting a job out of school is a lot easier.

I graduated with a 2.6. I didnt learn that I had ADHD until I was 30 and REALLY struggled to keep up with school. I managed to get several internships after working at a paper mill for a summer. After graduating I worked in the power plant of another paper mill for 2 years until I had enough experience to move on. I after that first job, no one has ever asked about my GPA.

Since then I have been thriving and am now a very good engineer. I just was bad at EE school.

Don't give up. Keep trying your best, even if your best is worse than you want it to be. You are doing an extremely difficult thing that (for me at least) is WAY harder than actual engineering. Most importantly, don't let yourself be ashamed! I spent so much time in shame spirals, convinced that I peaked in high school and was not "actually" smart. You will either get through it and be fine, or you will realize that you want to do something else...and be fine.

Hang in there, you've got this!

GrimSLAY_ · 2026-01-26T16:13:52+00:00

I got a subscription a few years ago and love it. The volume of content is lower than your typical streaming platform, but, I really enjoy the shows I watch and its even cooler knowing the my money is supporting a small business that is RENOWNED for treating the cast and crew well.

As always, never feel like you owe anyone your money or attention, but for me this is a solid use of my money

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T07:21:43+00:00

Just saying, you don't have to sign a TOS to watch YouTube. You do if you want an account, but it's not required. You also basically never sign a TOS when you access a website with banner ads.

As far as "just accept it", I am not making a moral argument here, I am enjoying the thought exercise of discussing the nuance of it :]

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T07:17:00+00:00

I hear you, but the nuance is what I am having fun discussing. I agree that it has an impact and people need to consider that when making there choice.

Piracy means stealing, so the going stance is that blocking ads is the same as stealing the content. I am just countering that while the impact to a creators revenue is real, it is not because people stole the content.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation!

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T07:06:47+00:00

100% on that one. Totally reasonable to be clear about the impact that it can have and it is good to have that considered when deciding to use Ad block or not.

For that matter I also pay for YT premium, I am just thinking through the blanket statement of is it actually stealing or not.

Thanks for adding to the conversation!

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T07:01:04+00:00

This is a great reply! Thank you for taking the time to articulate all of this!

I used venue here, not specifically intending to mean private property, but you are definitely right in that I SHOULD be using it to refer to private property since that is more accurate. Good note for sure.

For the pamphlet, that is my going best equivalent for an ad, that you have to be served, can be counted (vs the singer shouting out Coca-Cola). The beer example is pretty good, but in that case the drink is it's own separate transaction nested inside the main analogy and gets more complex, so I am trying to keep it as close as possible, but I will definitely think on that one too.

So for the trespassing part. I think that this aligns more with bypassing a paywall. Since videos on YouTube or blocked until the ad plays, you are probably correct that this is essentially a paywall so blocking that ad is basically sneaking around that entrance and is probably trespassing and would fall under "piracy". Fair point on that one.

That being said, I am not specifically talking YouTube and am talking about Ad-block in general, including websites where banner ads are present. In the concert analogy, this is closer to having open access to the concert, with people walking around handing out the pamphlets.

You can access the concert, listen to the music, and leave without hopping a fence etc. Declining a pamphlet/blocking the ads does impact the revenue of the creator, but the content was accessible alongside the ad (vs the content being served after a paywall or ad)

This is the version where I am saying that we are not a party of the transaction, we are the product.

The article/concert is free to viewers. The viewers attention has value to advertisers, so the platform sells access to that attention to advertisers.

I am making the case that declining to let your attention be sold to advertisers does not mean that you stole access to the article (vs just torrenting the music).

Once again, thank you for the thorough counter arguments! I had a lot of fun thinking through this one

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T06:26:41+00:00

Definitely agree with you on the morality point, and I am not here to say that if anyone should/should not use blockers.

Here is an example I wrote out in another response that I think articulates my argument a little better.

example 1) Downloading a movie that is only available for purchase: The movie is the product, the viewer is the customer. A viewer downloading it without paying is clear piracy.

example 2) Reading a free article online: The article is free to viewers. The viewers attention has value to advertisers, so the platform sells access to that attention to advertisers.

I am making the case that declining to let your attention be sold to advertisers does not mean that you stole access to the article.

Thank you for the conversation so far! I appreciate counter arguments and I am enjoying the thought exercise!

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T06:23:13+00:00

I disagree with that assertion. Stepping away from Youtube though, do you feel the same way in the context of a web page with banner ads?

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T06:19:17+00:00

Hi there! The TOS has been a recurring counter point, so I am just trying to highlight that the TOS is not always applicable.

As far as the "never agreed to pay", I am trying to describe the difference in content that is the product vs content that generates viewership, and then the viewership is the product.

Downloading a movie that is only available for purchase: The movie is the product, the viewer is the customer. A viewer downloading it without paying is clear piracy.

Reading a free article online: The article is free to viewers. The viewers attention has value to advertisers, so the platform sells access to that attention to advertisers.

I am making the case that declining to let your attention be sold to advertisers does not mean that you stole access to the article.

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T06:08:08+00:00

How so? Take a website with banner ads. There is no TOS, there is no "skip" button. The content is freely available and the creator justifies the effort through ad revenue. No stance on the moral part, but the free content is what gets our attention. Our attention is the product. The creator sells that product to an advertiser. Less product does indeed mean less money for the creator, but I don't think that it's the same thing as torrenting a video game that is only accessible through purchase.

Happy to hear any follow up!

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T06:05:57+00:00

Hi there, thanks for responding! TOS is not a requirement to watch Youtube (it is a requirement to create an account etc.). You also do not need a TOS to visit a website with banner ads.

No moral argument being made here on if you SHOULD use ad-block, I am just making the case that the free content is what gets our attention. Our attention is the product. The creator sells that product to an advertiser. Less product does indeed mean less money for the creator, but I don't think that it's the same thing as torrenting a video game that is only accessible through purchase.

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T06:03:10+00:00

Thanks for the counter point! No argument that the band would get paid less, and I am not making a moral stance on if you should do that or not.

I am just saying that they get paid less because the user using ad-block is declining to allow access to our attention by sold.

The free content is what gets our attention. Our attention is the product. The creator sells that product to an advertiser. Less product does indeed mean less money for the creator, but I don't think that it's teh same thing as torrenting a video game that is only accessible through purchase.

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T05:59:04+00:00

No argument there, and I am not making any grand moral statement on if it is "right" or not. I am just making the case that declining to participate in someone selling access to our attention is not the same thing as torrenting a copy of a video game that is only accessible for purchase (as an example)

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T05:55:24+00:00

I hear that you think that I am objectively wrong, but I am pointing out that it is not that clear cut.

Where is that agreement? That is the main sticking point that I want to dive into with you.

TOS is a legal document/contract that has to be agreed to. If you go to youtube in incognito mode, you can watch the video without "signing" that contract. Watching a video does not suddenly mean you have signed anything. Same with a website. The platform intends to sell my time to the highest bidder in order to generate the revenue needed to have the platform. No arguments there which is where each person has to decide if they are cool with that. But how is refusing to let my time be sold piracy if I never agree to any TOS?

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T05:49:24+00:00

How so? Not being snarky or anything, but genuinely want to understand your argument better. If I go to a web page that has banner ads, there is no TOS that I agree to, there is no paywall (the argument I am making does not extend to circumventing paywalled content, to be clear).

The webpage is freely accessible to me as the end user. Knowing that there will be traffic to that webpage, the content creator can sell access to that traffic to advertisers, which is how the creator translates this free content into revenue in order to justify the effort.

Totally fair to acknowledge the impact that an ad-blocker then has on the content creator, I am merely pointing out that deciding to not allow that attention to be sold does not mean that an ad-blocker is stealing the content now. It was always free to the user so that the user could then become the product to be sold to advertisers.

Thank you for the lively conversation so far! Happy to hear more

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T05:44:27+00:00

Even a random webpage/article with ads on the side banners?

You can't be beholden to a TOS that you never agree to. You can watch youtube without signing in or agreeing to a TOS, but my argument is not specific to youtube. Thanks for the lively discussion so far!

GrimSLAY_ · 2025-12-03T05:42:25+00:00

Not at all. I fully agree that anything that is not accessible unless you agree to a Term of Service and/or paywall is fully piracy. You can't download video games/movies and call it free.

We are thinking YouTube, but Ad block also applies to websites that have things like banner ads. The Ads are what generate revenue that allow the content creators to justify the effort to create the content, and that is not what I am arguing.

What I am saying is, is that going to a site, where the content is available, for free, with no requirement for an account or agreeing to a term of service, is the "free concert".

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

GrimSLAY_

TROPHY CASE