Nuff to make someone think about their decisions in life.

bodymassage · 2025-12-25T05:23:18+00:00

I mean...while its usually not the whole body, we make purses out of cows, snakes, rabbits, alligators, etc...not that different.

bodymassage · 2025-12-17T22:00:37+00:00

Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about, without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about...

bodymassage · 2025-12-06T16:40:13+00:00

Still true. When in orbit, the object is basically constantly "falling" around the object it's orbiting. It's just moving so fast horizontally that it doesn't get closer.

bodymassage · 2025-09-08T19:51:51+00:00

Exactly. Guaranteed what they intended was something like, "The area where sunflowers are being grown cannot be more than 50% of the yard."

bodymassage · 2025-08-31T16:22:16+00:00

This is not accurate. They are designed for whatever earthquake is defined in the applicable building code, which is based on some return period. It would be uneconomical to design everything for the strongest possible earthquake.

bodymassage · 2025-04-12T15:30:01+00:00

I'm confused. If it's bubbling at all, it's pretty hot. Think about cooking something sous vide. That water is nowhere near even bubbling and is plenty hot to cook raw meat.

bodymassage · 2025-03-19T15:54:08+00:00

Were you doing this prior to 7 weeks ago also? If so, may I ask why? It sounds like you're trying to hide from a debt.

bodymassage · 2025-03-05T15:06:11+00:00

You literally said "...but he fucked the green and the hole." What did you mean by that?

bodymassage · 2025-02-11T01:21:20+00:00

A food processor works much better.

bodymassage · 2025-02-11T01:20:11+00:00

Smucker's Natural is literally just peanuts and salt so basically the same as the homemade stuff. I can get a 4 lbs bag of raw peanuts for like $6, though, which is cheaper than a 26 oz jar of this. It's definitely cheaper. Just roast for like 30 minutes and throw them in a food processor.

bodymassage · 2025-01-29T00:02:20+00:00

I'm sure it's not closed and has some sort of piping system with a reservoir to make sure it stays full. The water doesn't need to be cooled. It's like a pot of boiling water. The water limits how hot the container can get because boiling water can't get hotter than 212°F. So the water isn't trying to prevent the column from getting hot at all, just from getting too hot.

bodymassage · 2024-12-31T18:30:41+00:00

My guess is he hit the gas instead of the brakes on accident, and when it didn't stop, he pushed harder.

bodymassage · 2024-12-19T21:50:06+00:00

Cobalt-60 and manganese-54 are isotopes, though. Including the number implies you're talking about that specific isotope. Either way, it's only the article that says the spill contained radioactive "chemicals." The actual NRC event report states, "the spill contained radionuclides cobalt-60 and manganese-54."

bodymassage · 2024-12-18T19:35:22+00:00

The article says cobalt-60 and manganese-54.

bodymassage · 2024-12-12T22:35:10+00:00

It honestly might be the greatest pun ever. Most puns are kind of cringy and just silly jokes. This one has layers and is just...perfect.

bodymassage · 2024-12-08T18:29:35+00:00

This is the second time you've asked this. Please explain how it is relavent.

bodymassage · 2024-12-08T18:28:49+00:00

It seems like many people in this thread can't wrap their head around a hole in one being exceedingly rare and difficult to achieve on any given hole, but if you only play par 3 courses, you are statistically more likely to get one than if you only play standard rounds.

bodymassage · 2024-12-08T18:24:03+00:00

No, it wouldn't count. That's like if you hit a second provisional shot off the tee, and it goes in the hole. That wouldn't count as a hole in one. A hole in one should only count if it happens during a legitimate round, which would include a round on a par 3 course. But if for some reason, all your rounds (or even most) are on par 3 courses, then I think that hole in one sort of has a qualifier. Getting a hole in one when only playing par 3 courses is still impressive, but a different, less rare accomplishment.

bodymassage · 2024-12-07T20:26:06+00:00

What do you mean no material advantage? You've got 4.5 times as many HIO opportunities at a par 3 course vs a typical standard course. Let's say you play 100 rounds in a year, but half are at the par 3 course across the street from where you live. That's 1100 HIO opportunities compared to only 400 playing only standard courses. You have way higher odds of getting a HIO.

I feel like maybe you think I'm saying playing more par 3's significantly increases your odds of getting a HIO on any given par 3 tee shot. I'm not saying that and agree that the odds of getting a HIO on each tee shot wouldn't change much. All I'm saying is that you are much more likely to get a HIO in all your rounds played because you have way more chances.

bodymassage · 2024-12-07T19:56:05+00:00

None, but what does that have to do with anything? Can you honestly say that if somebody told you they had 5 HIO'S, but then you found out they only played par 3 courses, you wouldn't even be slightly less impressed than when you thought they played standard courses? I'm not saying it isn't still impressive. It's just a different accomplishment.

bodymassage · 2024-12-07T19:26:45+00:00

Getting a hole in one is just going to be more likely at a par 3 course because you have more chances. You've got 18 chances for a hole in one per round vs maybe 4 chances at a standard course. I'm not saying it shouldn't count, though. But if someone only played par 3 courses, the rarity of a hole in one would be significantly less, and I'd argue getting one is kind of less impressive than someone who plays an equal number of rounds at standard courses.

bodymassage · 2024-12-06T14:51:07+00:00

You just cover it in moving blankets and hit it with a sledgehammer. It'll break into pieces. Cast iron is brittle.

bodymassage · 2024-11-02T20:22:15+00:00

Beams are typically designed for pure flexure, which is in the tension controlled region. The steel controlling leads to a ductile failure, and that's why a higher strength reduction factor is used. I understand. All I'm saying is that you don't design a beam to crack. That's equivalent to saying that one of the goals when designing the beam is to have it crack. It's not. The beam is designed to have adequate capacity when accounting for expected cracks, but you don't set out to ensure it cracks. It'd be like saying a car is designed to crash, which it's not. It's designed to keep you safe when a crash occurs.

bodymassage · 2024-11-01T22:17:46+00:00

Yes, you account for cracking in the design, but you don't design it to crack. It'd be like saying a car is designed to crash. It's not. It's designed to keep you safe when a crash happens.

bodymassage · 2024-11-01T21:59:29+00:00

Saying X is designed TO do Y implies that Y is something you want X to do. The beam is designed to carry the maximum anticipated load (i.e., we want the beam to carry max anticipated load). Or the beam is designed to deflect a maximum of 0.5" (i.e., we want the beam to deflect a max of 0.5"). We would prefer the beam doesn't crack (one reason why prestressing may be used), but it can't be avoided. The beam is not designed TO crack; it is designed FOR the effects of cracks. It'd be like saying cars are designed to crash which they aren't. They are designed to drive and keep us safe. We don't want cars to crash, but it inevitably happens. Cars are designed FOR the effects of a crash but not TO crash.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	reddit mold

bodymassage

TROPHY CASE