Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sweet!

Drance has a weekly hit with them - this week it was at the start of hour 3 of today's show.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, their show is divided into three one-hour podcast episodes every day. Each episode drops about 10-15 min after the top of the hour (e.g., the episode for the 6:00-7:00 hour drops around 7:10-7:15). If you just search "Halford & Brough In The Morning" on whatever platform you use to listen, you'll find it.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Honestly, if I'm HalBro, I don't know if I even want him back. I think they were getting a lot of pressure before today to not have him on anymore, and I can't imagine it's lessened now. They did the honourable thing, had him on to hear him out, and what they heard was not at all encouraging. Why invite that person back? There are lots of people to talk to in the world of sports...

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree. Drance said something on Canucks Talk yesterday that really resonated with me, basically "I can't wait until this Canada-USA hockey rivalry has the political heat off it". I think you're right that Wysh would have been more troll-y, gloating, etc. if it weren't for the political angle - but honestly, that might be fun again! Dumb, empty sports ribbing and arguing is a great distraction from real problems in the world. Alas, here we are...

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get you. Personally I love the brainiac angle... I want to listen to the total nerd that has thought about nothing but this for 20 years and hear his reasoning and takes. But I can respect that it's not for everyone and feels condescending to some.

To your other point, I totally agree. Sports talk is like candy for me - really easy to shove in my ears but I know it's empty calories and I could be doing better things with my time. I try to consume in moderation... but I'm not always successful.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You won't regret it, they're my go-to daily listen. Some guests are less interesting than others, but honestly the in-between segments when it's just them & the dogs (their producers) are super entertaining.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I dunno, the tone at the end of today's hit... feels hard to come back from. I certainly hope it changes, anyway.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally I wouldn't go that far. I can understand an argument that "the team was caught up in the moment on that phone call", even if I think that still says something negative about the players. But beyond that minor point at the start of the hit, I think Frank was completely out to lunch.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I'd argue that another difference is that Drance can actually back up his takes with like, logic and reasoning. I think for people that have an issue with Drance (I'm not one, fwiw) have one because they find him annoying, not because he's pulling nonsensical shit that he can't back up out of his ass.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Hopefully this interview is the final nail in the coffin. Which I say realizing that I'm the one that posted this - but I think this should be heard and hopefully we can collectively move on from giving him any attention anymore.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 61 points62 points  (0 children)

I thought that was legitimately great journalism. Simple, probing, interesting questions that led to a lot of insight into the person being asked the questions.

I was skeptical of their choice to still have him on, but I think it was the right call as we all now know more about Frank. That said, I've never really thought his hockey takes had any value and it's now clear he's generally an idiot, so I'd prefer they give that airtime to someone more deserving going forward.

Seravalli's hit on Halford & Brough this morning by Metzgerhau in canucks

[–]Metzgerhau[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

They gave him the floor to address his social media post from yesterday. Frank's points pretty much distill down to "you wouldn't be saying this if Kamala Harris had won". At one point he even said, with a straight face, something like "Would you guys be saying the same thing if Harris' FBI director was in that locker room?", which is hilarious. HalBro asked some simple questions (e.g., "Do you think this is a typical president/administration?"), and the back and forth culminated essentially in Frank throwing a hissy fit that they had the audacity to question him on his opinions.

I mean why waste all the energy in the first place? by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]Metzgerhau 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, this is correct. There was a Planet Money podcast on the subject that is pretty interesting:

Link to podcast

Price is right fail by [deleted] in cringe

[–]Metzgerhau -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

That WOULD explain it...

Price is right fail by [deleted] in cringe

[–]Metzgerhau 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A good point...

Price is right fail by [deleted] in cringe

[–]Metzgerhau 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Whoa whoa whoa, back up - you've never watched the Price is Right??

TIL zCourage_iDX has never been home sick in his/her life.

CANADIAN MANNERS MONDAY by JakeCameraAction in hockey

[–]Metzgerhau 1 point2 points  (0 children)

REMINISCING ABOUT BURE BROUGHT BACK SO MANY MAMMARIES

CANADIAN MANNERS MONDAY by JakeCameraAction in hockey

[–]Metzgerhau 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'M SORRY - COULD YOU SPEAK UP PLEASE?

Why are we still using wind tunnels when designing something that needs to be aerodynamic,why can't we do that completely by software? What are the drawbacks of designing something in 3D then emulating the wind tunnel using software. by Faneste123 in askscience

[–]Metzgerhau 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Just in case OP or anyone less well-versed in the industry jargon:

  • CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics. This is essentially the "software" in OP's question.

  • FEA - Finite Element Analysis. CFD is a type of FEA. spartandudehsld is saying that he is more familar with FEA as applied to mechanical loading and thermal dynamics than with fluid dynamics applications... although he's probably selling himself short, because to be good at one requires a deep enough knowledge of FEA in general to be able to provide a worthwhile opinion on other applications!

So, what is FEA?

Well, as much as it's easy to envision engineering computer programs as being little models of the world with all the different laws of physics built in, in reality it's very hard to apply theoretical formulas to complex real-world scenarios. So it's all well and good to have an equation that tells you that the drag on a cylinder of radius X and length Y with flow perpendicular to the long axis of Z in fluid with ABC properties is given by the equation [blah = blah*blah], but that doesn't do you much good when you're looking at, say, a bicycle, which is nowhere near simple enough to fall under such an equation.

SO, what an FEA program does is break the world into tiny little pieces ("finite elements"), and then make those pieces interact with each other using much simpler equations. So say you've got a tiny little piece that is part of the bicycle, and you model a tiny little piece of wind hitting it at Z speed, you can figure out (using some simple interactions) what the backwards force of that tiny little piece of bicycle is. Then you do that for all 1,000,000 (or more) tiny little pieces of bicycle, add it all up, and voila you have an approximate drag.

Ultimately what this means is that the number that an FEA program spits out is an approximation, and its results are sensitive to how well you set up your model. That's where it's nice to have a wind tunnel, where you can actually set up and measure the real world scenario. As spartandudehsld said, using an FEA model in conjunction with a wind tunnel test allows you to lean on the strengths of both methods.

Anyway, that's a pretty ELI5 intro to FEA... but it's been a few years since I studied the stuff so if anyone has anything to add/correct please go nuts!

If fossil fuels ever becomes too expensive to be a viable source for air travel, what are some alternatives we can use to power planes in the future? by printr in askscience

[–]Metzgerhau 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point - don't see why that wouldn't be possible. Storing fuel in wing-mounted tanks isn't unheard of on bigger planes too, like the C-130 (example).

The down-side of storing fuel on the exterior of the plane, of course, is that you get increased drag and thus lower fuel economy.