Cup of Coffee

July 14, 2011: Angry RNs

163 Comments

the NICU at the hospital didn't have a coffee machine, however the nurses' station at the labor and delivery department nearby did, and they gave me this fancy keycard to go in between the two. i would mosey on over (frequently) to steal a cup of coffee, and i would always get dirty looks. i would sheepishly say, "oh, hi, i'm just here from the NICU to steal some coffee." that would always soften them up, and i'd then get a sympathetic glance and they'd said, "of course, take as much as you want." score.

163 thoughts on “July 14, 2011: Angry RNs”

  1. The school in Prague says they'll be back to me within 72 hours, which is Monday at the latest (not counting non-business days). I really hope they're back to me by Friday. I'm practically vibrating I'm so excited for the chance.

      1. I was there for 5 days after I finished my degree at Trinity. Not a week goes by I don't think about that trip. As I remember, you were the one who recommended U Fleků on WGOM That Was. That beer there was amazing.

        1. Yeah, that would have been me with the U Flecku rec. Something about eating in a basement that was built before Europeans knew of our continent was really cool.

          Did you have any of the spirits there?

          1. I had some slivovice, which I did not like at all. But there was a more golden color liquor, maybe the other bottle of slivovice in this picture, but I'm not 100% on that one as I don't think it was plum-based. I liked that one a lot better.

            1. I don't know what it was, but they poured a lot of it at U Flecku, and it seemed to be their own spirit. I remember it being very herbal, with some liquorice and similar flavors.

    2. Woot. Not slow you down; but we didn't end up doing an eastern european stint due to concerns for the female folk. This is after talking to people doing a lot of TESOL stuff. Just though it should be out there somewhere. I know you'll be fine, especially based on your previous experience. cavot empor and stuff.

      1. Mo chailín has stood pirate watch while on Semester at Sea through the Horn of Africa/Red Sea and gypsy watch while excavating a site in rural Romania. She's got quite the set of Thatchers. And when we were there 2 years ago, we never felt it was bad, but we were doing touristy stuff. The lesson is, as usual, keep your head on a swivel and be proactive.

  2. I didn't realize at first that spooky hadn't posted a cup of coffee today, and I was wondering where the hell his story about the NICU came in.

    In my career I have found that in general, angry RNs respond best to blunt honesty with a hint of teasing. I heard going into my field that social workers and nurses often conflict. While we often have different professional views on things, I have found that I've been able to compromise with most of them.

      1. Ooh, there's an idea. I take the style of another Citizen in the CoC, and you have to name him.

        The first one: "Moss was just 25 miles from the All-Star Game, but unfortunately Moss had other obligations."

        ...too easy?

          1. Hey, speaking of me, I'm going to try to make that hopped up blonde ale on Sunday.

    2. angry RNs respond best to blunt honesty with a hint of teasing

      I've definitely found this to be the case, though in anything OB or ER related, all bets are off.

      1. With my mother being a Nurse I'm not sure how to respond tho this. RNs are needy and just stand around and gossip. Yes that feels about right. Ha.

  3. and i'd then get a sympathetic glance and they'd said, "of course, take as much as you want." score.

    You didn't try stretch the envelope and grab a beer from their fridge?

  4. Lots of good stuff on the Strib this morning:

    LaVelle says that M&M should play more together...

    Patrick says that Slowey & Gardenhire should play nice together...

    Sid says that TK should play color analyst more...

    And someone says they'll have lots of roster choices to make in the near future...

    Sometimes I wonder why I even go over there. Every single one of these topics has already been thoroughly discussed at a certain other site I frequent. My best guess is the writers face-to-face access to the players?

    1. Now I remember why - every once in awhile, you get a "laugh in your coffee" comment. Twins Geek's John Bonnes wrote a post on why Cuddyer will probably be back with the Twins next year. He makes reference to the fact that Cuddy will likely be a Type A free agent and thus cost whatever team signs him compensatory picks:

      Step 3: Cuddyer hits the free agent market with a loadstone around his neck.

      Commenter bustersci's response:

      He might have a stone around his neck, but I doubt a loadstone will make any difference, since it's a little piece of magnetic iron.
      Maybe you were thinking something like millstone?

      Classic.

  5. Thanks, hj. Last night I was in full-on celebration mode, what with the Milkmaid getting the job, and the CoC dropped out of my head.

    Last night, my father-in-law was acting strangely aloof and unexcited about the Milkmaid's development. I mean, he drank a little champagne and said congratulations, but seemed to be going through the motions. We didn't think much about it because he tends to dwell on things and never speak them aloud, but this morning he admitted that he found out he was being laid off just minutes before he found out his daughter had gotten the job.

    I feel for him. He's in a business where he can make a ton of money, but layoffs are frequent.

    1. Oy. Well, you got that in common with him, at least. Something to talk about (or sit in stoney silence together) over beers.

      1. There's actually a little we can talk about. It's just [the forbidden] that divides us as far as possible...which would be fine, but he never shuts up about it.

        Baseball, wine snobbery and uncertain futures keep us having just enough to BS about.

      2. There is never enough to bS about. Oof. Just do all the listening; which is a special kind of kindness . . .

  6. High drama in the Clemens courtroom. Apparently, the government violated an order from the judge re: an exhibit. Mistrial a possibility.

        1. Defense can now argue that retrying Clemens would amount to double jeopardy (I'm not buying that, but what do I know about such matters: not much). Hearing set for Sept. 2.

          1. I'm actually no lawyer, but I was always under the impression that one would have to actually be acquitted for double jeopardy to take effect.

              3. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't portray one on TV.

                Hank Hill: "Boomhauer, I can't understand a word you just said... what with all that legalese mumbo-jumbo."

    2. Was there some consensus here about Clemens, i.e., hate him because it's thought he was a cheater? I found myself not caring much about Bonds (when his trial finally came) and, if not for the SBG updates, I wouldn't even know that Clemens was finally at trial. The trial strategies and missteps have been interesting...is that why we care?

      1. I would put it out there that I don't care at all. I also didn't care about Bonds' trial, or Casey Anthony's, or either lockouts. Anytime a legal matter allows for posturing and moralizing, I immediately tune out.

        1. Ah, now there's the son of a lawyer coming out. Despite wanting to be an architect, I hated math enough that I quit after trig. Of course, Pops Hayes was a math teacher.

          1. I'm not sure if it's because Dad is a lawyer or not. I just always hate being told I should be outraged, pontificating and holier-than-thou attitudes, and they seem to pop-up in full force with high-profile cases. I actually find legal/judicial history and the like pretty interesting.

          3. Ah, he's admitted it before.

            EDIT: Oh wait, I get what you were saying. Never mind.

      2. Was there some consensus here about Clemens, i.e., hate him because it's thought he was a cheater?

        FTFY

        1. Was there some consensus here about Clemens, i.e., hate him because it's thought he was a cheater? cheater or not, he's always been kind of a prick?

          This about does it for me.

          1. Was there some consensus here about Clemens, i.e., hate him because it's thought he was a cheater? cheater or not, he's always been kind of a prick, played for the Red Sox and Yankees, and inspired some Bill Simmons columns?

            There's my opinion.

      3. I updated on the Bonds trial because I personally thought it was interesting. I have long believed that Bonds would walk. I find Barry interesting because he's clearly a very intelligent guy, supremely talented (I think he's the most talented baseball player of all time), and a first ballot JHOFer -- Jerk Hall of Fame. I also was interested in the process -- would the prosecution be able to convict him, given what I thought was pretty flimsy evidence? If no one else cared, that's fine, I'm just one guy with a keyboard who hangs out here.

        I did not intend to update on Clemens, but I did when it appeared that it was going to be a mistrial. As for Casey Anthony, I commented on that not because I was interested in that particular case but more because of the outrageous posturing on HLN.

        1. If no one else cared, that's fine, I'm just one guy with a keyboard who hangs out here.

          Of course, I'm cool with anyone else caring. It's easy enough for me to just keep on scrolling. Nothing's making me take in any conversational I'm not interested in. I hope you didn't take my disinterest as an attack on you or what you find interesting. As you said, I'm just a guy who hangs out here.

        2. (I think he's the most talented baseball player of all time)

          without Babe Ruth, ....

          Ok, mebbe I won't go there 🙂

          but seriously, interesting beer pitcher topic. Most talented EVAH?

          I'd lean toward Bo Jackson as best athlete ever in baseball, but that's obviously not the same thing.

          FWIW, The Babe has 4 of the top 6 rWAR seasons of all time. Bonds has 3 of the top 10, Mantle 2, and Rogers Hornsby has the other.

          I think Mantle has to be in the mix for "most talented ever". As does Willie Mays.

          Bonds' top three seasons were at ages 36, 39, and 37, respectively. That fact alone has to raise some serious questions about the Boss's assertion. How much of his all-timeness came out of a needle? (his 4th-best season came at age 31, 5th best at 28; don't we expect the natural arc of a player to peak in his late 20s?)

          I think Bonds was a supremely talented player and performer, but I am not yet convinced by the "most talented" assertion. Ruth's top five, in order, were at 28, 26, 25, 32 and 31, respectively.

          1. I'm not sure most talented = best ever. WAR attempts to measure the latter, but I'm not sure it does as well with the former. To me, most talented would mean the best all-around player. Maybe the best five-tool player. I agree Jackson would be on the short list for best athlete, but he didn't hit for enough average and despite his speed, I don't think he was ever considered a superior defender. I think Ruth has to be on the short list just because he was a dominant pitcher as well as one of the best hitters of all time. Others on my short list would be Mays, Mantle, Griffey, A-Rod and Bonds, although Bonds played the least important defensive position of the group and I think had the weakest arm. Oh, and don't forget Delmon Young. You know no one doubts his talent.

            2. although Bonds played the least important defensive position of the group and I think had the weakest arm

              Sid Bream would agree.

              2. His overall talent still amazes me. Other than his arm (which I believe was not bad, just average), he really was a perfect athletic specimen and baseball talent. It still blows my mind that at age 39, he was 66/79 in stolen bases.

            4. Oh, and don't forget Delmon Young. You know no one doubts his talent.

              Plus he's only 25!

          2. I don't think that the Babe, if playing in today's environment, would put up the same kind of numbers that he did in the 1920s. Would he have slugged .690 for his career if he'd have had to face sliders and split finger fastballs and relief pitchers? He certainly couldn't run like Bonds. He almost certainly had a better arm, but how many gold gloves did he win?

            1. For a while, I've figured that we ought to use standard-deviations-above-average as a way to gain additional insight on this matter. On the one hand, Ruth was in poor shape compared to Bonds, on the other hand, he didn't get access to the sort of training that Bonds had growing up, either.

              If we take the best early Bonds season by OPS+ ('92) and the best Ruth season by OPS+ ('20), we have:

              .311/.456/.624 -- Bonds, 205 OPS+
              .376/.532/.847 -- Ruth, 255 OPS+

              In '20, for players with 200+ PA, average OPS was .742 and the standard deviation was .136, so Ruth was about 4.7 SD above average (for a regular.)

              In '92, for players with 200+ PA, average OPS was .713 and the standard deviation was .096, so Bonds was about 3.8 SD above average (for a regular.)

              So even discounting Ruth a bit for the fact that it was in a real sense easier to put up silly numbers in 1920 than in 1992, he maybe comes out a little ahead for that season. I don't have it in me to do a more thorough comparison at the moment.

              1. Ruth was actually in very good shape in the first part of his career. He didn't take care of himself, of course, and gained weight as he aged, but if you've ever seen pictures of him when he was in his 20s, he looked pretty good.

            2. Babe is unique because his defensive talent comes from the pitching side of things, not his OF play.

              Would he have slugged .690 for his career if he'd have had to face sliders and split finger fastballs and relief pitchers?

              Would he have weight trained and watched his diet if he had played in a modern era? What if he had played in the current Yankee Stadium bandbox? There really are too many unknowns to go down that path. All we can do is compare players to their eras, and Babe was a man among boys, and a giant man at that.

              1. I would also point out that he had FOUR separate seasons in which he accumulated double-digit triples. For his career, he average 9 triples per 162 games. I'm not suggesting he was fast, but those numbers indicate that he could run a little. One or two triples might be a fluke (ahem, Jim Thome). But sixteen (1921, age 26)???

                also, and again FWIW, the Babe actually led the league in dWAR in 1923 and was top-5 in dWAR in 1924, 1925 and 1927. None of that came from pitching.

              2. What if he had played in the current Yankee Stadium bandbox?
                As opposed to the one that was 285 to the left field pole? Or 295 to right?

                1. Oh, please. Right field was 350, right-center was 425 and CF was 520. There is no comparison. The original Yankee Stadium wasn't close to the homer haven that the new one is.

                  1. The dimensions weren't changed until 1937*, after Ruth retired. His home/away home run totals differ by 4. That includes 1919 though (pre-1919 doesn't have split data available yet), so if I toss out 1919, then he hit 336 at home and 329 away. You could say "X Stadium wasn't close to the homer haven that the new one is" for every stadium today. Dimensions back then were gigantic everywhere.

                    * Andrew Clem's diagram has some minor changes in 1928, but nothing major until 1938.

                    1. Yankee Stadium wasn't built until 1923 (House that Ruth Built). Wikipedia has the dimensions in 1923 (From L to R) 285, 395, 460, 520, 425, 350, and 295.

                      So, yeah, he may not have faced as wide an array of pitches (although how many pitchers would he face in a season? 40, 50? Not too many scrubs to be found), but the stadiums were gigantic and he started in the dead-ball era, although offense took off at the end of his career.

                    2. (although how many pitchers would he face in a season? 40, 50? Not too many scrubs to be found)
                      That could be an advantage though. More familiarity and fewer relievers. Man I wish we had play-by-play from those years to see how many homers Ruth had after facing a pitcher two or three times in a game.

                    3. Fewer pitchers means less scrubs to face. Yeah, you would know their tendencies better, but they would know yours as well. No fifth starters or long relievers to face. If a guy is dominating, he won't get taken out just because he reached an arbitrary pitch count, even in extra innings. The biggest advantage for hitters was no specialist relievers, such as LOOGYs or closers. At that time, I don't think there were many relievers at all. Many times, the starters would get a day off and then it would be their turn to be the reliever for the day if needed. This might have been before Ruth, I'm not sure. Still, relievers at this time were failed starters. However, just imagine taking the top 120 pitchers or so in the majors and dividing them in half. That would be the AL. Forty of them would pitch 90 percent of the innings in the AL.

                    4. he won't get taken out just because he reached an arbitrary pitch count, even in extra innings.
                      Which almost entirely favors the hitter. Moot point though, since we can't systematically research this.

                      However, just imagine taking the top 120 pitchers or so in the majors and dividing them in half.
                      I get what you're saying, but it isn't that simple. First, cross off all the blacks and foreigners, like Latin Americans. Also remove most, if not all, of the pitchers born west of the Mississippi. There's a reason the PCL flourished prior to the Giants moving west.

                    5. I should add that there were half the number of teams, which would help concentrate the talent more.

          4. I'm glad to see you mention Bo Jackson. For some reason, I was just thinking about him the other day. For a while there, he was the most famous athlete around. Now, he's been largely forgotten. He wasn't a great baseball player, but he was definitely a great athlete.

          5. Derek Jeter. Biggest Star. Biggest Market. Case closed, idiots.

        3. Though I don't think you're feeling insulted, I do want to comment. I meant the if not for the SBG updates as a compliment. I try to avoid the four-letter at all costs, but as I noted, the trial missteps and strategies have been interesting. I'm glad to get a concise update about it from a knowledgable source, without having to wade through all the bullsh*t posturing associated with that network.

          In the end, I simply didn't care about Bonds because they took a shot at perjury and obstruction of justice, not exactly sexy charges - even to a "lawyer". Plus, even if they'd convicted him of both, it couldn't fix a tainted home run record or the 10+ years of MLB history associated with steroids. That's what I felt was appealing to the public; as if putting Bonds on trial could somehow put the steroid era to rest. I guess I felt like the steroid issue had already gone by the wayside when he was finally convicted.

          Edit: This was supposed to nest under Mag's last comment.

          1. I am stunned by the prosecutorial mistakes (or at worst deliberate tactics) in the Clemens case. The judge ruled that Mrs. Pettitte's testimony was hearsay and inadmissible except as rebuttal and they have it plastered on a video that they show to a jury? Come. On. That's amateur hour in the DA's office.

            1. Jobs will be opening up. This is straight up misconduct. It is hard to believe this even happened.

      1. If the defense can convince the judge that a retrial is double jeopardy (the only basis I can think of would be that a retrial would be unnecessary harassment of Clemens), well, time to think about a career flipping burgers.

        1. I doesn't even need to go to double jeopardy. This is a big deal. You do not refuse a judges's orders.

      2. The judge said a first-year law student should have known not to make that mistake.

  7. Either Doug Melvin is trying to give Ron Roenicke use his best reliever in the highest leverage situation, or he's just crazy enough to let F-Rod get close to his option's vesting threshold.

    1. If Milwaukee lets him get to 55 GF, their "brain trust" is comprised of morons. I think this is just posturing to soothe K-Rod's feelings.

  9. Emmy nominations are out today, and there's not a single nomination for Fringe, Treme, or Terriers. I haven't watched awards shows for years and years, but it's always disappointing to see well deserving shows not even be nominated.

    1. As Sepinwall often says in this situation, "Yep, these are our Emmys."

      David Simon must have rubbed the deciders the wrong way at some point. His shows get universal critical praise, until the Emmys come around and overlook him entirely. The Wire didn't sniff more than a couple nominations either, as every other HBO show cleaned friggin' house.

      I haven't watched the awards show in years and probably never will again. It's amazing to me how the Oscars can do a pretty reasonable job year after year (with, yes, some extreme exceptions) but the Emmys are head-scratchers every year.

      1. I missed this earlier, but Parks and Recreation's Nick Offerman did not get a nomination for Ron effing Swanson. thats an outrage

        1. Actually, that doesn't bother me much (well, awards shows don't bother me period these days, but it doesn't bother me in principle either). He's perfect in the role, but very little range has been asked of him to this point.

      2. While I agree with you, in the end I don't care any more about Emmys, Oscars, College football rankings, All Star selections, etc. Too much subjectivity to take them to hear. But they do a fine job of sparking debate, which is also useful.

        So, how about the annual GOMMY awards, voted on by the Citizens? The best in sports, beer, and entertainment? With one SBG Lifetime Achievement Award each year? Someone designs the trophy, we send them to the recipients, we have a big banquet... ok, I am running a little too far with this...

        1. I'm all for a banquet. We can hold it every summer in a park somewhere. Sending them to recipients could also be hilarious.

  10. I told mo chailín about my new boycott of MillerCoors. After I explained things, she called them "Bitches!" and joined me. She's sad to have to give up Leinie's, but she's on board. Also, she was very incredulous about the fact I said I was done with High Life.

    1. I'd love to jump on this boycott, but it's a little meaningless at this point, as it will change absolutely nothing about my beer selections.

      1. Given the amount of High Life and Leinie's that we go through at our place, it will definitely affect our purchases. I'm getting around to drafting a letter to them that I know will never get read. And I know our purchases are the most infinitesimal drop in the MC bucket. But I do go on sometimes about how much I love local craft beer, and I feel like if I don't do something that makes me somewhat hypocritical. And hypocrites are right up there on my list of people I can't stand, between petty criminals and Torsten Frings.

        1. I hear that actual letters are pretty likely to get read, since they're so infrequent that corporations know the customer means business. Not sure if Miller acts that way, but it's worth a shot.

          And now, off to Google "Torsten Frings." Edit: Ha. I assumed it was a thing, not a person.

    2. I pretty much buy beer from three breweries: Surly, Summit, and AMR's homeys. Go with the Grain!

      1. Those are my staple brewers as well, but I also go to Sierra Nevada, New Belgium, and Bells quite frequently.
        And for some reason, the small-town store where my inlaws live always has Shiner products, so I've sampled many of those.

    1. David West, Junior Ortiz, and Jarvis Brown bobbleheads?! Sign me up!

      Okay, it's not a full set unless there's a Twig bobblehead. And skinny Gardy. Dick Such can take a flying leap.

    2. Wow, I thought he was going to land in the water, not damn near clear the beach. That was pretty cool.

  14. So, I've had my Gmail account for something like 7 years now, and because I got it very very early I had a very easy time getting a name I wanted without having to add a bunch of numbers or anything to it. Apparently, this means that mail destined for other people ends up in my e-mail. Sometimes this is amusing (once I received pictures of some families goats as the person who the mail was destined from apparently missed them), but sometimes I get e-mailed giftcards that were intended for someone else. I just received a $150 Southwest giftcard destined for another "Zak" for his birthday.

    Now, I'm not going to use it (even though as someone who has very little money and rarely gets to travel, I'd love to use it to visit some friends several states away) as I couldn't in good faith. But the stupid e-mail it's sent from is from Southwest and is a mail I can't respond to. And it doesn't give me the e-mail address of the person who sent it. I have their name, but that's about it.

    I'm not sure what the point of this post is, but I guess I'm just annoyed that it's far more difficult to do the right thing than it is to do the wrong thing.

    1. Sigh, and now that I'm trying to find a contact form on their page, I see this wonderful condition.

      "Delivery to an incorrect but deliverable address as provided by the purchaser is the responsibility of the purchaser."

      1. Well, if after considered effort you are unable to get the gift to the right person, is there a way you can donate it to a charity?

      1. Right. Just because they've disclaimed responsibility doesn't mean they won't help you.

        1. Especially when they realize you are an honest person trying to do the right thing. I would hope.

          1. They were able to help on the 1-800 line, and said they would reach out to the person who placed the order. The code they sent me was voided, and I guess they'll issue them a new one? I hope it gets taken care of soon so Zak can get his birthday gift on time.

  16. Real baseball's back! And it's the second half! Tonight's lineup:

    1. Ben Revere, CF

    2. Alexi Casilla, 2B

    3. Joe Mauer, C

    4. Michael Cuddyer, RF

    5. Jim Thome, DH

    6. Danny Valencia, 3B

    7. Delmon Young, LF

    8. Trevor Plouffe, 1B

    9. Tsuyoshi Nishioka, SS

    Pitching: Francisco Liriano

    Interesting that Valencia so quickly went from on his way to Rochester to batting ahead of Delmon and Plouffe!

    2. Tonight's weather forecast:

      Variable clouds with thunderstorms, especially late. Low near 65F. Winds SE at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 40%.

    3. via twitter:

      TomPelissero
      Late change: Jim Thome (toe) has been scratched from #Twins lineup. Luke Hughes now in at first base, Trevor Plouffe to DH.

  17. signs of a NFL lockout: driving around Mankato today, there were no tents up welcoming the Vikings and Vikings fans to training camp. And waling around the mall, Twins gear outnumber Vikings gear by about 4 to 1. I swear everyone had something Twins related on them today, which is cool

  19. Alex Massie 'splains teh Interwebs to Jonathan Rauch.

    Like an over-matched Jack Russell terrier, plucky Jonathan Rauch will neither let go nor go away. I salute the scamp and his rascally determination to snap at any passing ankle!

    And, actually, I take his point that new technology such as Kindle singles, apps and whatever comes next will offer writers and readers new and interesting ways to engage with one another. But it's hardly Blogs vs Apps since why can't you have both? Equally, blogging isn't for everyone and if some young writers are depressed by the pressure of being expected to produce X number of posts a day then, well, that's a shame but there are plenty of other things they can do.
    ....
    Jonathan seems much more concerned by what one might term producer interests than those of consumers. That's his prerogative and not an unreasonable one either. Still, let me suggest there's at least culturally-significant area of American life that was failed by the "mainstream" media and been immeasurably improved by the blogosphere. I speak, of course, of college football.

    I defy anyone to examine the coverage of college football in the twenty leading American newspapers and twenty leading football blogs and not conclude that the latter does a vastly superior job.

    He goes on to tie back in to Bill James.

    In some respects many of the best of the football-bloggers build on the work of Bill James and his famous Baseball Abstract. That began as an amateur newsletter with a tiny band of subscribers and became something that revolutionised baseball. What everyone told you was true turned out to be less true than you were told. If James were beginning today he'd have started a blog. And, like at least some of his successors, he'd have made a living from it. (And plenty of team-specific baseball blogs are better than anything you'll get in the New York Times. At least bloggers tend not to over-value junk stats such as "wins" and RBIs)

    and so on. Good stuff.

  21. One last link from Andrew Sullivan's blog today, in celebration of the Milkmaid's job offer. "Lessons learned on the job".

    I didn't write in, but I have vaguely similar tales to tell. I was doing an admirable job of flunking out of college my freshman year. The summer after (before I returned to Spamtown to spend a year at the community college) and the following summer (returning to Carleton), I worked for the housekeeping department, and also spent some time moonlighting, working for a janitorial service. Bathrooms and carpets.

    There is nothing like cleaning other people's beer and vomit out of carpeting to develop your sense of appreciation for what privileged d***s college kids can be, and to develop your determination to succeed in school so as to not spend your life breaking your back.

    1. College kids were absolutely the worst part of college for me. I wish I would've let it roll off my back, but it definitely is a huge reason why I never finished school.

      1. I loved college, but if I hadn't had so much in common with the people in my department, I would have hated it. Anytime I was doing anything unrelated to the theatre department, I was unhappy. The people in my department were crazy, careless college kids, but they were my crazy, careless college kids. That's as far as I could stand college people.

        1. Oh yeah. I absolutely realized I was in the wrong program, but by the time I got myself to somewhere I enjoyed the people a bit more (and the professors), I was so burned out on school I couldn't muster the strength to give a damn. I wish I could do it all over again sometimes, but I turned out okay I think.

    2. Funny thing is, I can relate to d*mn near every one of those "life on the job" stories: department store, delivery man, janitor, food service attendant, field work, fast food, grocery store, waiter...the list goes on and on. I must have learned about a dozen times that being paid to think is better than being paid to lift/clean/whatever. And yet, I still occasionally find myself envious of the blue collar worker.
      Oh, and college was fine, it just took me 10 years to finish my undergrad degree.

  22. I'm seeing this going around. Science-lovers, is this true?

    Neptune was discovered exactly one Neptunian year ago today. A Neptunian year = 164.79 earth years

    1. Neptune was discovered on September 23, 1846. 1846 + 164 = 2010. 0.79 years = 9 months, 14.6 days. September + nine months is June. 23 (day too early!) + 14 = 37 mod 30 = 7. Hrm, four days off. I'm guessing rounding error from the 164.79 earth year number.

      Edit: The "today" is the 11th, not the 14th. Hence the four days off, not seven.

      1. Ha! Trying to apply math to dates.

        Adding 164 years and 288 days (365.25 * .79) rounds up to July 8th. That's within one Neptunian day -- I say give it to them.

        1. Still three days off. But we were only given five sig figs, while I bet if we had six or seven the computed date would've been right.

    2. Looks like 80s night in Toronto, so no on screen scores, 80s scene transitions, etc. It's really strange to watch a game without the ever-present score in a corner.

      1. I was watching a game recently and the channel was having formatting issues, and the score was pushed over the left edge. I found myself feeling completely in the dark, despite the fact that I watched baseball that way more than a decade.

    2. Glad you enjoyed your brief trip through town. Assuming you came up I-35, you passed within hundreds of feet of my apartment.

    1. Wow. That is just totally unassuming. I thought for a bit you meant I was going to laughing at how dumb and lazy the analysis was, but that was gold.

Comments are closed.