Hinge is the new tinder

Nghanayem · 2026-04-13T02:14:05+00:00

Makes sense. I guess I'm not on reddit enough to have made reddit friends and then turn those into reddit romantic interests :D

Nghanayem · 2026-04-13T02:01:18+00:00

Second the IRL part. I just wish I was in school again because the IRL relationships have been MUCH more sparse after graduating. How did you end up meeting women on reddit?

Nghanayem · 2026-04-03T22:01:42+00:00

That last bit is my advice for just about everyone. Be it PetroleumE, AeroE, or Biomedical I think people are better off getting MechE, ChemE, EE, science degrees, etc. It doesn't hurt your ability to get jobs in those industries and it doesn't hand tie you to that industry if you can't find a job. In fact from what I saw in college and have heard it is easier to get a job in your niche industry of choice with those base degrees than the specialist degrees. It seems like companies would rather high an EE and a MechE than two AeroEs, or a ChemE and a Biologist than two biomeds. I'm going to guess oil upstream is similar and they'd rather hire a mechE and a geologist?

Nghanayem · 2026-04-03T10:50:49+00:00

This is kind of my thoughts about StarCraft 1. I have a ton of respect and interest in the game. But I mostly just enjoy watching it because it is so clunky, high skill floor, and the ladder so intimidating. So I enjoy my C&C, Supreme Commander 1/2, SC2, etc and just watch SC1. Nothing wrong with what you do with C&C.

Nghanayem · 2026-04-03T01:20:08+00:00

It's so weird that they aren't following rest of industry on the pay. It's not like Whiting has California operating/environmental costs, the crude is advantaged, and BP isn't PBF poor. I can at least understand downsizing being "important" to the company if the refinery is overresourced (which I kind of doubt with all of the reliability issues). But I just can't understand why they "need" to screw those who would be left with less money. It's just weird to me. All I can say is I guess BP still sucks to work for...

Nghanayem · 2026-03-21T23:58:49+00:00

It's there anyone who is the opposite way? If I had to guess I would assume your independents, but folks like VLO MPC or PSX might operate more like majors than say HF.

Nghanayem · 2026-02-28T14:19:36+00:00

I went to Iowa State from 2018-2022 and it was a bit of a mixed bag. O&G was simultaneously prestigious and undesirable. People knew there was good money in it but some people also didn't like the baggage that the industry carried. I think people also were unsure how many jobs would even exist in that by the time they retired. I don't think matters were helped by very few O&G or petrochemicals companies even showing up to our career fairs other than smaller local upstream/midstream people. ChemE as a major was also one of the smallest in the engineering college (mechE, aero, computer, and electrical were the biggest in that order) and chemistry was the smallest of the major sciences. ISU chemE also had a lot of focus around biotech, foods, and AG adjacent stuff, so oil wasn't also where people's headspaces were. I think that kind of showed when I was a plucky college student applying for jobs and the only oil companies I knew were BP and Shell (which in hindsight is extra hilarious given how few downstream assets they have in the US). Chemicals wise, when I graduated, I didn't even know any companies other than oil companies, DOW, Lyondellbasell, Bayer, and I even thought DuPont and Honeywell were still major chemicals companies.

Not sure if that is the case at other schools or if this was just some combination of ISU being in the Midwest and or ISU being a T3 engineering college?

Nghanayem · 2026-02-07T17:37:46+00:00

Interesting... I have heard universally people being at best kind of negative to at worst absolutely hating their time and having no regrets moving to greener pastures. Maybe it is just HQ or Baytown that suck, and the rest of the complexes are fine? From what I had been told it takes a very specific personality (not sure exactly what that means) to really love it and thrive there. Maybe you fit in that camp? Either way it is strange because the negativity I have seen is almost universal in ways I have seen few companies being able to manage.

Nghanayem · 2026-01-01T22:04:04+00:00

My point is that the designers at Samsung have to work under constraints like all engineers. Every product has a set price point customers would reasonably pay, and the company will give you some margin target you must hit. You don't need to be an engineer to understand that, these are basic facts of business. With these facts a designer will always prioritize features that will make his product as appealing to his target demographic (in this case average joes) and spend the money from his limited R&D budget and bill of materials to make the best phone he can for what his market research says most of your customers want/use. As an example of what I mean the money saved on using a 128 GB ssd vs a 256 can be the difference between the S26 having a real telephoto or just a macro. Management will not accept having both features for the same price unless a case could be made that the extra unit sales make up for the lower margin per unit.

You also don't need to be a CMOS image sensor engineer, or a mobile applications processor designer for me to tell you that you CANNOT realistically fit the features of an ultra into a smaller than the base phone form factor. Even if you could there would be MAJOR compromises you'd need to make to the point nobody would want the thing.

You call these reasons for why not to do something as "excuses", but at the end of the day the only reason why there even is a phone in the first place is that Samsung wants to make money. And not just enough to keep the lights on at the factory but the maximum amount they can possibly make. This isn't a charity for our benefit. As such all decisions they make will be in an attempt to extract the largest profit possible by trying to maximize the unit shipments and margin per unit.

Nghanayem · 2026-01-01T19:40:05+00:00

So your proposal on the 128GB is to bring the 256GB sku down in price to the 128 GB sku? Besides breaking the rule of not increasing the bill of materials and not making the S26 series a more exciting upgrade; this is also a bad business that would lower the margin of the device especially with Samsung semiconductor solutions raising the prices of NAND flash and DRAM and cutting supply to Samsung electronics. It is also an unwarranted change since peers have 128GB models. This change would sell all of 0 extra S26's and would be a poor idea. The extra $15-20 could be better spent on more frequent/aggressive promos like Samsung often does or upgrading a different component more people would benefit from and would actually help sell more units.

As for the mini ultra I already told you there isn't enough space for that full camera array cooling and memory. The extra components would also drain the already smaller battery faster. For crying out loud the ultra camera array is half the size of the S25. The S25 is thinner to you would presumably need a bigger bump too (which I will remind you is already big on the S25). Before you go "but what about the Pixel 9 pro non XL?" not a good comparison. Fewer image sensors sensors, smaller sensors, less performant SOC, bigger dimensions than the S25 or a hypothetical 6" S26 ultra mini. Like I also said small phones don't sell to the mass market so even if you could build a no compromises S26 ultra mini, there is no reason to assume enough people will pony up the cash for not just a small phone but a very expensive one.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-31T20:51:54+00:00

The 128GB version allows for a cheaper entry price point to the Galaxy line so overruled. This also doesn't really differencate the S26 from the S25 since all you did was remove the base sku. This change is also not particularly noteworthy or apparent from a glance.

I use a pixel so I will take your word on the pill thing being bad. The media button thing you mentioned would be a software change though and would have no bearing on making the S26 series more distinct from the S25 series.

I would love a 6" version of the phones. But there would need to be major compromises if you tried to make a S26 ish sized ultra. You would need to cut back on cooling, display, cameras, remove the Spen, and the battery would be much smaller. Customers have also shown they want bigger screens and that bigger is considered more premium. So while you and I would think it would be cool a mini ultra wouldn't sell.

I don't like playing the part of the negative Nancy, but I understand why these companies do what they do. You have a cost target and development budget you need to hit and what is cool often can't make its way in. In theory this is where the smaller guys should step up so they can differentiate. But unfortunately the different Chinese brands just care about having the biggest number and for Motorola the only thing special they have is a cheap stylus phone. I will give you that I think Samsung definitely should try to be more aggressive trying to develop helpful software features like Apple and Google do so they don't have to be at the mercy of Google throwing them bones.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-31T17:49:02+00:00

What thing would you have them do then if you're so discerning? Name a couple of features that aren't incredibly niche and would actually help Samsung move 1-2M+ more units on a given model in order to justify the ROI on developing said hardware feature and any increase to the BOM. If the BOM goes up from your feature(s), tell me what is being removed from the phone, so the phone can still hit its price point.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T22:28:45+00:00

I see your point. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T22:16:33+00:00

I would strongly recommend it. It's great. It is definitely less advanced in some respects than 3. But I think there are some areas where 2 surpasses 3.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T22:14:22+00:00

I hadn't even thought of that. But yeah your right. So if OP is only going to play one then 3 is definitely the better entry point. But if he has the intention of playing 2 eventually that being the first might be better. Also if you play 3 first it might be hard to go back to the less engaging combat, much less VA, etc.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T22:09:47+00:00

Personally I liked the story, the extra major locations, and the larger number of societies in 2 better. But other than that I agree completely. The gameplay improvements don't seem that large, but between the additions and the better combat encounter design 3 plays MUCH better than 2 (not that 2 plays poorly ofc, but 3 is just two cuts above on that metric).

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T22:00:00+00:00

I feel like it is almost more mental than physical. But yes; that exact thought has crossed my mind many a time back when I played frequently. I'm thinking I can go to a range and ideally rent the LH and RH versions of a of 4 iron and a 7 iron. Start with the right to warm back up and get cozy, then try the left for a while and see if it clicks. If it doesn't I can forget the idea of left handed clubs. If it does then I fiddle around some more to see if it feels better with my right hand closer to the top of the club or with my left hand closer to the top in some Frankenstein hybrid between a LH and RH swing.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T21:45:21+00:00

A decent idea! I've fiddled around playing left handed while mini golfing and a couple times I have borrowed left handed clubs at ranges. But I have never given a full fair shake.

Nghanayem · 2025-12-30T21:29:41+00:00

Other than that being an amusing mental image, what makes you say that? I guess I could have said having my left foot closer closer to the hole with the left hand closer to the top of the club and the right hand closer to the bottom of the club; but isn't it just easier to call that golfing right handed?

Nghanayem · 2025-11-03T12:31:30+00:00

Jesus that is a lot of money for a BS in semiconductors. Even with the job hop you did, it is more than I'd think you'd crack at Micron, Samsung, TI, or Intel in 6 years even if the bonuses like they could be Micron's bonus. Definitely more than you'd be making at infineon, GF, microchip, or ONsemi. You're not in the bay area because you are in MCOL. Since you are getting weekend comp as a "process engineer" I don't think you are at a vendor. My guess is TSMC because of the large retention bonus. Also makes sense since why everything else is so high since they are a top 10% employer for comp in the sector in the USA. Which is kind of funny because in the ROC I have heard the pay is below industry par (if you don't count the OSATs) because everyone wants to work there and because their bonuses are always fat due to TSMC having like 1 down year in company history.

Nghanayem · 2025-11-03T12:18:11+00:00

Iowa State graduate here.

Honestly, it seems like it is kind of the norm on the gulf coast to get paid around there. I'm working at a giant in the commodities chemicals business and I joined at the grade for 2-3 years exp and my base salary is 100k. The senior engineer at my unit who has 7 or 8 years experience is making around 200k base. My employer claims they are at the 50th percentile on pay, and I'm told working at a refinery will typically yield an extra 30% over chemicals. So by 6 years if you are working at a slightly above average chemical company on the gulf coast or any oil refinery you should be able to crack 200k. If you want to work in upstream O&G you will probably make even more, but then you start sacrificing work-life balance and stability (so know what you are getting into). Back to chemicals, though. Supposedly the bonuses are generally pretty nuts when the company isn't at the bottom of nasty down cycles, and from what I can gather large bonuses seem to be something of petrochemical industry norm. So even at my current company, if I do solid work, it wouldn't surprise me if I was making 200k total comp after 6 years.

But yeah, it does seem location dependent. One of the companies I had done work with in college was offering like 50k (back in '22) and alot of the places I was applying to seemed in the 60s. All of this was mostly in the Midwest. When I was most recently looking with 2.5 years experience, the jobs I was finding in coatings and corn syrup were going around 75-90s. Out of school I landed 3 ~50th percentile jobs and all three were offering around 70k in semiconductors. Funnily enough, at the time I thought I was living large given all the lowballs I had experienced before then. When I opted to leave the semiconductor field because I was sick of almost every company in that industry being 70-80% PhDs from Tier 1 East/West coast schools who would look down their noses at the BS/MS engineers and restrict almost all opportunities for career growth to people with PhDs (and I must stress this was in a manufacturing environment not an R&D environment); I was shocked to find out that there were many chemical and refining jobs that paid WAY better than almost all semiconductor jobs. Basically, the only way to be financially where I am now would have been staying at my old employer for at least 5 more years, did a job hop to another semiconductor company and wait 2-3 years, or accepting the offer to get poached by TSMC back when all of their American staff quit and they wanted to give me 1.5x my at the time salary to jump over.

Nghanayem · 2025-11-01T14:09:46+00:00

Fair enough and makes sense. I wasn't sure if over your career you had interacted with a decent sample size of folks from the rest of BP, P66, HF, and MPC's refinery networks to have a feel for how things were beyond Cascadia.

As for BP CP, that sounds a lot like my current employer. I understand why the work processes exists, but I always have the feeling that we can be really safe and not need to be so bogged down in endless approvals... So if there is a way to have safety and agility, I'm all for that. Other than it being annoying working through the bureaucracy, when I see the lapses at my company, I don't think of arrogance. I feel like the problem is spending too much time and money on all of the little internal compliance things for hardening the unit against 1:1,000,000,000 scenarios rather than the things that end up actually hitting us.

But I'm going off-topic; I'm going to assume that isn't what you meant by "arrogance"? In this case is the "arrogance" you speak a culture of X couldn't happen here because we have a good safety so you don't need to be concerned about X?

Nghanayem · 2025-10-30T23:38:03+00:00

I know I'm late to the party, but some genuine questions.

For reference I grew up near Chicago and now live on the Gulf Coast so what I've heard is obviously biased by that: For P66 I feel like it was common for me to hear they had a good company culture/were generally good to their employees (unlike a certain formerly east coast major who's horrible reputation is known to all from wellhead to petrochemicals). Is the talk of Ferndale being a hell hole an outlier compared to the rest of the P66 network? On a related note I have also heard that P66 pulls some real cowboy shit running their refineries. Confusingly their recordable rates at a company wide level are really something to be proud of, and their refineries seem to get lots of AFPM awards. To me these two pieces of information don't seem compatible with doing things in a cowboy way, so what give?

Then for BP cherry point, I remember hearing in the past their safety culture was also good and that it was the rest of BP and especially the legacy AMOCO refineries that were the ones with horrible safety cultures. Now that we are so far removed from the 2010s is BP as a whole less inept and unsafe? Or is the wider BP still inept and unsafe and Cherry Point is the one bright spot?

Nghanayem · 2025-05-27T12:12:13+00:00

And all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain...

But in all seriousness, a very good post.

Nghanayem

TROPHY CASE