Poker kind of fills that void for me.

The last time I did anything really dumb unprovoked, we were taking a nice walk through the local state park. There's a hill big and steep enough for sledding in the winter. I decided to get a running start and do a jumping somersault down the hill. Turned into an uncontrolled tumble down the hill.

managed to somehow regain my balance without issue and walked it off with two sore wrists.

Was a rush. I don't do many stunts nowadays though.

How long ago was that?

My godson was about 5 or 6 I think at the time. He, his mom, his moms best friend, and I were taking a nice walk. So that must have been 9 years ago.

I still dabble in freestyle walking, but have stopped the really stupid stuff.

I mean at least freestyle walking has a purpose.

When I was a kid, we went sledding across frozen water hazards at a local golf course in the winter. Sometimes they were not as frozen as we thought. Of course, that was probably why that area had been roped off with big "ABSOLUTELY NO SLEDDING" signs posted.

Freestyle walking??

Freestyle walking is awesome.

We also used to pick a destination and walk straight there, regardless of what was in the way.

Isn't freestyle walking just a non fancy way to say Parkour?

It's called parkour when you do it sober.

Since the issue of free speech at UC Berkeley was brought up here, I want to remind everyone of the reason Milo Yannawhatever was invited to speak at CPAC to begin with:

"An epidemic of speech suppression has taken over college campuses. Milo has exposed their liberal thuggery and we think free speech includes hearing Milo's important perspective." (Matt Schlapp, CPAC chairman)

"We realize that this invitation will be accompanied by controversy which we think the conservative movement and our CPAC attendees can handle." (ACU statement)

Back in my undergrad days, I had a very eccentric P. Chem prof. His particular brand of eccentricity was that he neurotically felt compelled to obey laws and follow rules. He also wore the same suit everyday, though presumably changed his white shirt daily because he sweat so much that he'd pull a handkerchief from his suit pocket to wipe his face about every ten minutes during a lecture. His breath was bad enough to rid a neighborhood of feral cats.

One day my roommate came back to our dorm sort of shaking his head and laughing and said, "You won't believe what Dr. Hall just did. I was stopped at a light but didn't realize I was blocking a crosswalk. The pedistrian light turned green and Dr. Hall crossed one lane but I'm blocking the other one. Rather than go around the back of my car, that crazy ****er opened the back door, slid across the seat and exited the other side. He didn't even say 'sorry' or 'thanks.'"

Redundant IME

funny story, that one.

Poker related chem prof story:

We were discussing whether it's more likely that two atoms form a diatomic molecule, then two molecules collide, or whether three atoms collide at once.

"Three of a kind beats two pair in poker," the professor explained, "so it means the three-atom collision is rarer."

For a few years, I remembered that three of a kind beats two pair because of chemistry.

Yeah seems quite infrequent that three atoms would form a bond simultaneously under chemical reaction. Like if I sprayed some H2SO4 on my pc in a fit of rage after a bad beat, that the protons on the loose would **** up lots of molecules first, creating a slew of loose positively charged molecules that are looking to hook up with extra extra read all about it electrons, that are typical of metals.

That seems much more likely than three atoms coming together simultaneously. Even considering the high rate of reaction that is common with explosives and catalysts, though? I'm not so sure. Like in the big bang, was it just <explode> = all the elements in the universe come into existence, or was it more like <explode> = then the protons, neutrons, and electrons interact in a massive mess of atomic fusion = then the elements come into existence and react with each other forming molecules that continue to interact until this very day. Ask a tralfamadorian. One would know the answer to this.

Will answer Bob some other time.

---

My team has been on a "betting on molecules" kick. Earlier this week I was asked how much money I'd stake that this particular molecule would do well on a certain test. I declared, "all in," and pretended to shove. People were amused.

Today during our team meeting the bad news came in mid-meeting. I saw the email, raised my hand, and announced, "chips!"

Nobody got it. (Nobody but me plays poker so basically all they know is TV poker) Oh, well.

I kinda thought leo (the guy that posted 20 mins before you to say "glad she's doing well") was the doctor and you were some weirdo w over 20k posts on a poker forum. idiote

To be fair, if there's one thing pope knows well, it is damaging brain cells.

The triatomic thing was an exercise in cross-sectional areas. Two molecules don't usually interact in a vacuum - if the two molecules independently have enough energy to be apart, when they react they will have enough energy to fly apart again.

So usually there needs to be something to take away that extra energy. Three molecules collide, two react, and the third takes away enough energy to keep the new molecule together.

As a side note, the extra thing can also be a surface, and if you Google "diet coke mentos" you get to watch dissolved carbon dioxide rapidly becoming gaseous carbon dioxide when a nucleation surface is added. A less practical example is how CFCs degrade ozone a lot faster in the presence of microscopic ice crystals.

Maybe if you grabbed all your things, got up and left the room? Could throw in a nh on your way out too.

Walk of Shame > Calling for chips, IMO.

#2: Betting KK into trup queens

I posted before Leo did a detailed analysis...and I get concussion info beaten into me due to following fantasy football fairly closely.

And shake everyone's hands on the way out.

Did you tip the guy that sent the email?