Txzen

It also has a great aquarium - the only rival is the spectacular one in Monterey. Right across the way is the modern art museum the De Young. There's a tower with an observation floor - on a good day, the view is great. Not many people know it's free, and you don't have to have a museum ticket. Also, paddle boarding around Stow Lake is really great on a nice day. If you are going to do a ferry, I would probably suggest the one back/forth to Sausalito or Tiburon (and not Jack London), as you can almost count on better weather. In the Presidio, the newly renovated officer's club has a nice review of early SF history and military tradition. Admission is free. Nearby is the Disney Family Museum. I have not been as I've heard mixed thing about it (particularly for kids). There's a lot of early drawings from cartoons which are probably more interesting for adults than kids. Again, haven't been. But a walk along Crissy Field, lunch or snacks at the Warming Hut is a good day. Early October could be absolutely glorious with weather. Continuing on to Fort Point and climbing to the very top - the GG Bridge is so close you feel you can touch it. Just walking across (or to mid way) on the GG Bridge is a treat. The Exploratorium is hands-on science-y stuff. If she's into it, it's a fun time for sure. Aquarium of the Bay is just ok - the one in Cal Academy is far better, but if are there and can only do one it's not bad. The SF Zoo is also just ok as once you get past the new spectacular African section it's pretty old-school depressing. The Oakland Zoo is far, far better, but it's probably too far. If you have a car, driving up the Headlands immediately after crossing the bridge to Hawk Hill is great. Descending down, the backside is one of my favorite areas. Short walk to the Point Bonita Lighthouse, Playing at Rodeo Beach, The Nike Missile Site (now open Fridays and Saturdays), Battery Townsley (first Sunday of the month, 12-4).

But would Gilbert start the game with a slow loping toss to a poorly executed WR screen which relies on the ability of CJ to effectively block his man (even though he's consistenly shown no desire for physicality)? I knew we were in for a long day when that was our first play, as it showed we didn't make one single adjustment from the previous game.

Paris is full of playgrounds - practically in every neighborhood. The French, and Parisians in particular, are very family friendly. There is a playground to end all playgrounds in Luxembourg Gardens, with areas of play for all ages. Highly recommended.

Nice kid, who will probably graduate.

I wonder if a) whoever was calling that play really knew he was in (unforgivable) or b) we’re still operating from the perspective that our plan is so great it doesn’t matter who’s specifally in at RB. Our decisions around who gets the rock continue to fucking astound me.

You’re thinking checkers, when we are playing 3d chess. Porter was out there because we were trying to catch them unawares. It was masterful and would have worked if we weren’t trying to be so perfect all the time.

I'm not thrilled with the quality of most of the Ace-branded tools, but what is nice about my neighborhood store is that it is always stocked and there is always someone knowledgable within arms reach for questions. I can't count how many times I've gone to the Depot only to find whatever it is I need - 10 hinges of a certain kind or something similar - out of stock. Bizarre. No Orchard close to me, but the few times I went there were helpful people there. Helped that there were no shoppers to begin with.

Personally, a good Armagnac is best enjoyed neat by the fire, but if you want to dump it in a cocktail I'm sure it'll be fine.

FIFY

Everything is different when it's your kid.

I'm an immunologist by training (not MD) so I have some strong feelings on the matter as the biology is pretty clear to me. Also you mean approval by the FDA (not CDC). There are clinical trials published an ongoing, and trust me that none of those get started without heavy scrutiny by the FDA, particularly when children are on the trial. The cutoff on many of those trials is age 4. About 20% seem unable to tolerate the OIT from the published work Aimmune is shooting for 2018 approval in the US, 2019 abroad : https://www.ft.com/content/17cd58b0-165d-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Goddamn right. But if you look at the people who are really debilitated by this, they are often reactive to something as small as 1/6000th of a peanut. That said, there's some published work out there with therapy a handful of nuts is tolerable.

The peanut allergy situation is indeed starting to get out of hand for two reasons. One, there are many people with claimed food allergies or intolerance which is completely lacking in medical facts. Case in point : gluten. A lot of self-diagnosis out there. That said, while I believe there is a particular hysteria with nut allergy, it is indeed on the rise. There's a body of evidence that it's been a bit fueled by long-time medical advice to not 'challenge' young children or infants with things such as peanuts or even milk or eggs, let alone shellfish, soy or wheat. If there is genetic evidence in the family then, sure, introduce with caution. But the number of people with actual predilection for food allergies is very small. It turns out that depriving children of these food allergens during a crucial time when their immune system is defining what are 'good' and 'bad' allergens may cause more problems than it tried to fix. There a really great study from Israel which showed that early introduction of these allergens had a great impact on reducing the likelihood of developing the allergy. There's a ton of immune cells in your gut, which is an area bathed in helpful and harmful bacteria, as well as being constantly exposed to proteins which might prompt an immune response. If you only get exposed to peanuts later in life, the thought is that there's a greater likelihood you'll develop an allergy since your immune system never learned it's just part of the normal diet. Some cool clinical trials where they are purifying these proteins and trying to desensitize people, with a few biotechs working on this. The studies are trying to help people whose goal is not to eat a Snickers some day, but just not go into anaphylaxis in case they ingest a minuscule accidental amount.

I didn't realize anyone said this other than the fat orange guy. Good to know. Not sure why you'd say something so easily and demonstrably false (and this is coming from someone who just criticized their coverage). I count 20 articles for a three week tour (five by Ian Austen, the rest by the AP). So, you know, more than two I think. https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/tour-de-france

There was a NYT piece recently lamenting at the lack of American riders at the Tour, and the decline of the sport (road cycling) in the US, while gravel and MTB have had an upswing. That said, the focus always seems to be about winning. The French haven't had a winner in 30 years. There are plenty of good, gritty Americans in the Tour and the pro peloton doing their job. It's not all about the podium, which is what Lawson demonstrated. It was amazing to watch him battle on.

Lance is a poster boy for the effect of oxygen vector doping - either by blood transfusions or drugs to boost the hematocrit. He started as a junior under Eddie Borsewicz, who is at the genesis of blood doping in US cycling. Armstrong has a lower than normal hematocrit (<40) and as such, the benefit for him in raising it to the maximum allowed (50%) is far, far greater than someone who is normally at a higher value. Talented cyclist? Sure. But he became a monster cyclist through oxygen vector doping - and the complexity of his program is something he has never ever really come clean about. The lactate threshold is something he himself floated, ostensibly as a cover for his use of performance enhancing drugs. Maybe part of his performance, but it was not remotely at the root of his success.

I don't understand your confusion. It's clear he punched the crap out of that car.

The Soulor/Aubisque from the way they are coming tomorrow is just great. It's an epic, but doable climb which takes you from quaint small villages with beautiful old churches past the treeline into a beautiful, vivd green alpine environment. From where I've stayed near Argeles-Gazost, it's a 40mi out and back, with 6500' in climbing. Max elevation is about 5600'. Crossing from the Soulor to the start of the Aubisque is the Cirque du Litor, a road barely two lanes wide carved into the mountainside with a few absolute sheer drops and no protection. For those with a fear of heights (me) sticking to the outside 'lane' is really hard. There are a few tunnels as well, one which is just long enough to plunge a cyclist in complete darkness for a second longer than you'd like. The tunnels are wet and riddled with potholes. It being France, naturally there are delightful places to stop roadside at the top of both climbs and have a meal, or a glass of rose on a hot day. It's not really hard enough, I think, for a major GC shake-up tomorrow, unless someone decides to fly on the descent. But is sure pretty to watch.

Test

FFS...yes, Pantani was doped to the gills. He was also one of the most natural climbers and bike handlers in his generation, with a penchant for climbing in the drops - everyone else looks like a fool doing it but Alaphilippe pulls it off, and descends as well as Il Falco. Hence the comparison This really is the No Joy In Cycling Thread.

Or, dumb luck if your team gives you the wrong tires for the cobbles. Forgot to give Bardet the special tires.

Alaphilippe is the real deal. Haven’t seen someone look so good climbing in the drops since Pantani. Chapeau. Phil Gil’s crash was sickening - did not expect him to walk out of that.