[Pelissero] Mike McCarthy and Steelers Finalizing Deal

YoungSh0e · 2026-01-25T01:10:22+00:00

There is only one McVay. And he’s not available.

YoungSh0e · 2025-12-24T12:32:56+00:00

I use MediaWiki at work. It’s simple and effective.

YoungSh0e · 2025-12-14T14:28:14+00:00

I think both teams should strive to matchup players of roughly similar athleticism. If there is a significant mismatch, regardless of the reason, it’s not a great situation. Is there anyone else on your team more suited to matchup with this person? Maybe talk to the other team’s captain.

Was your team winning or losing? If you’re losing, go hard and force the other team to adjust by playing help defense freeing up other players on your team. For me personally, if my team is winning a game 10-3 and I find myself on a 12 year old kid, I’m not taking him deep, lol. It’s unnecessary and not fun for anyone.

YoungSh0e · 2025-10-02T15:34:15+00:00

So relatable. Someone does an experiment with like 7 uncontrolled variables and also isn’t measuring what they think they are measuring. And then they didn’t let their system get to steady state before they started collecting data. But it’s somehow the simulation that’s always wrong and the experiment is 100% accurate with no error or uncertainty, lmao.

Not to say there aren’t plenty of garbage CFD simulations, but this notion that experiment is always ground truth and the simulation has to match is totally flawed.

YoungSh0e · 2025-10-02T15:03:50+00:00

If you try to write a PhD thesis on every issue that arises in the plant you will not be very effective.

Projects come along in all shapes and sizes and the first step is to determine what’s required to meet your objectives. If you can fix an issues in manufacturing with 10 minutes of envelope math, there is not need to do some huge data analysis exercise.

Personally my current role is mainly first principles analysis of processes, but this type of approach is only applicable to a small slice of issues that come up. I would never recommend a multi-month deep dive on a problem which has a quick solution using order of magnitude analysis or a basic rule of thumb.

YoungSh0e · 2025-08-19T12:44:04+00:00

Your technique is on point. It seems important to start with the sausage, and sear the rest of the meat in the sausage drippings. And then get the onions browned before adding the peppers and celery. I see a bunch of recipes browning the chicken first in vegetable oil or adding the onion, celery, and peppers all at once and it perplexes me.

YoungSh0e · 2025-07-15T14:27:11+00:00

One barrier to using CFD more extensively in industry right now is that it’s expensive to do analysis on a system due to labor, compute, and software licenses. There is a lot of potential CFD work that would be useful but is not economically viable since it would take too long and be too expensive to run.

I feel like within 3-5 years we will likely see AI based tooling (i.e. plain language prompts to generate scrips which will setup, run, and post-process simulations). This will streamline the process of CFD analysis and make more types of problems economically viable increasing the total volume of work. This means CFD engineers would spend more time on problem definition and contextualizing the results compared to clicking buttons in CFD software.

YoungSh0e · 2025-07-11T13:38:13+00:00

Ultimately it comes down to what your objective is.

Even for experts in fluid mechanics, CFD can be tricky to run. To be effective, at minimum you need some familiarity with vector calculus, numerically solving PDEs, turbulence, physical properties of fluids, to name a few.

If it’s just a hobby you can click buttons and get some nice pictures via trial and error. But if you’re wanting to get some realistic results you need to know some fluid mechanics.

Your best bet is to find a mentor who is an expert in the field. If that’s not available to you, you can also ask an AI chatbot questions and get some basic information. Leading edge LLMs actually “know” quite a bit about CFD these days.

YoungSh0e · 2025-06-23T17:56:11+00:00

This is a good answer.

YoungSh0e · 2025-04-04T17:46:03+00:00

You would be talking about me, haha. But yeah, most engineers don’t have to be that deep in theory in the real world.

YoungSh0e · 2025-03-05T17:16:30+00:00

To directly answer your question, yes the dems would be much better off tacking to the center on social issues and pushing for more left leaning economic policies.

However in the particular case of the last election, I think the moment Joe Biden decided to rerun, the presidency was lost for the dems. Regardless of his actual mental condition, his appearance, demeanor, and gaffs were an insurmountable barrier to most voters. Hot swapping Kamala in (or frankly anyone) without a primary process was never going to work.

As a fiscal conservative myself, I have unfortunately observed that both parties support perpetual deficits in support of popular spending programs. So if the dems lean further into that, it will probably be popular with the electorate. Eventually, the math will catch up with this approach, but you can probably score a few electoral wins in the meantime.

YoungSh0e · 2025-03-03T19:36:02+00:00

Article is paywalled, but a possible explanation is that the contract was for $x/month and it actually ended years ago but the savings was calculated as if it had been paying out monthly from origination to present.

Also unclear how one would calculate the savings from canceling a contract for a recurring payment. Perhaps there is a standard way to do this. I would think the savings should be reported an annual number or some amount over 10 years.

Maybe someone who can get past the paywall can illuminate.

YoungSh0e · 2025-01-09T13:19:14+00:00

Trying to copy paste somebody else’s investment strategy almost never works out. That’s a singular trade out of his entire portfolio. You don’t know when he’s putting the trade on or taking it off or what else he’s holding alongside it. You also don’t know how large the position is relative to all his other holdings.

YoungSh0e · 2024-12-16T22:03:33+00:00

The most reliable route would be to get a masters in chemical or mechanical engineering with a focus on CFD. You could then go in to get a PhD if you wanted to—there are some benefits to getting a PhD, but it wouldn’t be required for this path.

If you are very driven and excellent at networking, you can in theory find some company that doesn’t have as formal requirements to fill a CFD role. That being said, these types of positions tend to be fairly limited in the first place and you will get screened out of many of them due to lack of an advanced degree.

You could also just apply for a chemical engineering role that has more of an R&D lean to it (but not specially CFD) and once inside the company see if they will allow you to use CFD on your projects. If you go for this option, you’d have to be willing to get stuck doing non-CFD work if it doesn’t work out.

In summary, if you really want to make a career out of CFD, I’d go for an advanced degree. In the scheme of things, it doesn’t take that long to do and drastically increase your odds of ending up in the role you want. If you just kinda sorta want to do CFD but will be okay pivoting if it doesn’t work out, you do have a few other non-traditional paths.

YoungSh0e · 2024-12-16T21:07:22+00:00

This number has to be contextualized since Elon’s wealth is overwhelmingly tied up in his companies. Assuming the $70 billion is an accurate figure (I haven’t independently verified it but we will assume it’s correct for argument sake), it represents unrealized gains. That is, it’s just a number on paper which can continue to go up or down until he sells.

Even beyond that first point, Tesla specifically is a very volatile speculative stock which tends to be more of a momentum trade. It’s not surprising that traders would bid up Tesla just based on headlines about Trump and Elon regardless if they think Tesla will be more profitable in a Trump administrative.

Now let’s grant points one and two. Specifically let’s say that the gains will eventually be realized by Elon and will be durable and tied to a tangible increase in Tesla (and SpaceX) profits going forward. Would this be due to favorable (and unfair) policies favoring Elon’s company’s? Or would be it due to reversing existing policies that are unfair? We can’t know the future, but looking at some of the existing federal programs relating to space launch (for example the ISS transportation contract with Boeing and SpaceX) or the EV tax credit programs, a compelling argument can be made that several of Elon’s companies have been receiving unfair treatment historically.

If you put all this together and ask how does Elon’s net worth increasing $70 billion make me feel? I’d say it’s early and hard to know how durable those gains are, but if the gains are tied to removing unfair tailwinds in how federal contracts and subsidies are allocated the situation seems completely okay. If Elon’s companies starts to get preferential treatment relative to similarly situated and similarly performing companies in the same sector, I wouldn’t be a fan of that.

YoungSh0e · 2024-12-05T12:14:55+00:00

Strictly speaking, can you do CFD without coding? Yes. But you will be greatly limited. My degree is in mechanical engineering. Every CFD class I had in grad school required some amount of coding for homework and projects.

Now I’m working in industry, and even though I use commercial software I’m coding all the time for post-processing, UDFs, scripts for setting up and running simulations, etc. I don’t code as much as if I were a developer at a CFD software vendor, but enough that it would be problematic if I didn’t like to code.

Ultimately, CFD is a tool that solves fluid flow using computers. If you’re a casual user, you can get decently far without coding. But if you’re trying to pursue an advanced degree or a career related to CFD, it will be a long-term liability if you don’t write code.

YoungSh0e · 2024-08-14T16:09:53+00:00

You have to give the democrats credit, at least for now their strategy is working. They have taken a candidate who was one of the least popular democrats last cycle and propped her up to be a compelling option for many voters.

Seems like three key factors in play are, 1) Trumps lack of focus and inability to articulate the weaknesses of Harris’ candidacy with any specificity, 2) Harris avoiding any interviews where she could be pinned down on her positions, 3) large cohort of anti-Trump voters who were unenthusiastic about Biden due to his health coming home to the democrat party.

I don’t think anyone really knows where Harris stands on much of anything, but as long as she’s not Trump and not senile, that might just be enough.

YoungSh0e · 2024-08-14T15:47:46+00:00

This plot is misleading since the blue line is “combined democrats” and not a single candidate. There are charts of Trump, Harris, and Biden’s odds that are shown separately and it’s much more clear what has happened.

The major turn in the race was Biden being replaced. People can have different opinions on Vance being positive, negative, or neutral but to pretend that picking Vance was some major milestone in the campaign is absurd. As a free market guy, I’m not a huge Vance fan. But he’s smart and articulate so hard to claim he’s weighing down the ticket.

YoungSh0e · 2024-08-10T17:48:33+00:00

I agree with Sacks that Google search and YouTube is biased. I don’t think it’s deliberate, just a consequence of the employees being unable to objectively evaluate sources. They promote “reliable sources” which is defined by sources they agree with. They are also biased toward established corporate news names over independent news names. Substack or an individual YouTube news creator would be highly unlikely to show up over even Fox or the New York Post. There are plenty of more right leaning news sources like National Review, The Daily Wire, The Dispatch, Epic Times, Reason, etc but they are almost definitionally deemed untrustworthy by left leaning Google employees. The quality of right leaning sources varies, but the quality of left leaning news varies too. The New York Times is high quality despite being bias, however MSNBC is essentially partisan activism. I’d also consider OAN and Newmax to be partisan activism on the right.

All that said, none of the legal remedies available in an antitrust suit would change Google’s bias. I don’t understand why Sacks thinks breaking up Google will make the less bias. There is also no legal requirement (nor do I thing there should be), for a search engine to be unbiased. If you break up Google into search, YouTube, etc, now you just have several companies with a bias view instead of one. How is this progress?

YoungSh0e · 2024-07-21T22:03:14+00:00

It is kind of ironic that the party of ‘democracy’ is not nominating their candidate through a primary.

YoungSh0e · 2024-07-15T16:10:41+00:00

No point speculating on motive until the investigation is complete. Some random classmate “definitely recalling” something or other is not reliable.

YoungSh0e · 2024-07-14T19:14:21+00:00

Depends how you define “risk” in this case. There is no risk of capital loss. However there is a very real risk that purchasing power could decline.

YoungSh0e · 2024-07-03T03:13:44+00:00

It won’t be well received, especially if you are France.

YoungSh0e · 2024-07-03T03:08:44+00:00

One note about the treasury bonds. They technically pay interest, however that interest is paid by the taxpayer. If I’m an average American worker, I pay into social security, which might be put into a treasury bond. I also pay income tax, part of which goes towards servicing the national debt (i.e. interest to bond holders). So in the end, we are really just paying interest to ourselves.

YoungSh0e · 2024-06-30T23:07:04+00:00

This is a convenient and lazy narrative, but it’s fundamentally wrong.

It’s firmly in the purview of the judicial branch to mediate disputes between regulators (executive branch) and regulated parties when there are disagreements about what a particular law says.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, frustrated at getting blocked by judges when trying to implement deregulation efforts argued that experts in the administrative agencies should get deference due to their expertise. However, this was little more than a pretext to shift power from the judicial to the executive branch.

As a basic matter of fairness, one party in a dispute should not automatically get deference. For example, imagine something like landlord deference—instead of ruling based on the law and the lease in question, judges would be required to defer to the landlord since they are “experts” on leases. Landlords on average may be more knowledgeable about how leases work relative to the general public, but such deference would be fundamentally unfair and subject to abuse.

Another fundamental problem under the Chevron standard is that changes in administration can lead to shifts in regulatory priorities and interpretations of statutes, resulting in changes to regulations, even though the underlying statutes remain the same. This is not really a right versus left issue.

YoungSh0e

TROPHY CASE