u/iamjohncarterofmars

This Sunday night (August 19, 2026) I (19M) decided to go hit legs at my local 24-hour fitness. I’m on a diet cutting weight right now, and I didn’t want to skip my gym day, so I went later at around 10-11pm. The plan for this workout was to be a less intensive leg day with an emphasis on avoiding anything that puts a load on my lower back. I recently injured my lower back due to an incident on hack squats, which I am going to start physical therapy for soon. In an effort to get a jump on chicken-leg syndrome, I decided to get back into hitting legs making sure to avoid anything that could hurt my back. This was the workout I devised:
- 6 sets Lying Hamstring Curls
- 4 sets Leg Extensions
- 2 sets Single Leg Extensions (each; in retrospect, don’t know why I decided to randomly switch to isolateral, but whatever)
- 2 sets Adductors
- 3 sets Abductors
- 4 sets Standing Calf Raises
At face value, it’s fairly basic. I have 6 sets for hamstrings, 6 sets for quads, hardly any volume for the adductors and abductors, and then 4 sets for calves at the end. I try not to prescribe myself specific rep ranges, but I was safely within the 6-15 rep range throughout all of the movements, and given that I was attempting to avoid my usual heavy compounds, I decided to compensate by going to failure on most sets. Now, to be clear, by failure, I mean “okay I can’t get another one” and then I stop. I was NOT pushing to drop sets or supersets or anything like that. It was an underwhelming workout, and I was pushing hard enough that my legs were wobbly walking around the gym, but I was happy I got myself in to do the much-needed reps after not working out legs for a few months.

Following this, my expectations were very set that I would be experiencing delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMs) due to being fresh to hitting legs. And, as I anticipated, my DOMs following the normal schedule: the next day is bad but not terrible, but the day AFTER is the worst. By Tuesday, my legs were absolutely obliterated. It didn’t ring any bells at first, but looking in retrospect, these are of course the worst DOMs I have ever experienced in my short little life. However, again, I was expecting it to be pretty bad, so I didn’t pay much mind to it from a medical perspective. But rest assured, it was bad enough that at first I couldn’t extend my legs all the way due to tightness from my calf and hamstrings, I could hardly get my legs up on my bed, or even move them around to find a comfortable position. Getting in and out of my car was a slow ordeal, and overall it sucked.

After coming home from dinner late at night, probably around midnight, I decided to begin my ritual of taking a piss and then laying in my bed to watch Attack on Titan. I went to the bathroom, and for some reason, my pee looked a little dark. A little too dark. But, I hadn’t really drank a lot of water that day, so I chalked it up to dehydration. It also didn’t look nearly as dark because it was diluted by the water in the toilet bowl. I went back to my room, finished watching my show for the night, and decided to play some calming YouTube piano music videos to go to sleep. But then something in my mind clicked. I don’t recall if something came up in my feed or if I came to it on my own, but something about the slightly darkened pee and my insane DOMs made me think twice about rhabdo.

I immediately got up, went into the kitchen, grabbed a glass, went to the bathroom, and pissed in the glass. Now, for some perspective, rhabdo pee can appear on a spectrum anywhere from iced tea to Coca Cola. My pee looked like a fresh Arnold Palmer on a hot summer’s day. No bueno. My stomach instantly dropped and I could feel the adrenaline everywhere. “Shit this is happening.”

I paced the living room, thought about it, and then went upstairs to tell my parents:
Parents: “What’s up?”
Me: “Can I turn the light on?”
Parents: “Sure”
Me [holding up piss]: “Does this look dark to you?”
Mom: “Yes.”
Me: “I need to go to the ER. I think I have rhabdo.”
Fast forward 30 minutes and now I’m in the hospital getting my urine and blood tested, keeping my fingers crossed that I’m just dehydrated. Well, they take me to a bed, and the doctor walks in:

> “So you seriously broke down a ton of muscle. Your creatine kinase (CK) are at 44,393 U/L. So you definitely have rhabdo. Luckily, it hasn’t hit your kidneys yet, but your liver enzymes are a little high.”

Safe to say I made the right choice by going to the hospital instead of trying to sleep it off. Anyways I made this pretty cinematic so far but the rest is boring because now I’m definitely staying at the hospital for at least a few nights and they’re just flushing my system with fluids to get my CK levels down. Remarkably, all my other blood markers that they test for were completely fine. It’s just the CK levels that were off the charts.

What lesson did I learn?

I really have no idea. Somehow I got a mediocre leg day and now my body wants to kill me, so I’m quite uncertain where my baseline level of effort in the future is supposed to sit. Especially considering this isn’t nearly as hard as I’ve worked out my legs before. I used to throw 5 plates on each side of the hack squat with decent form and go ass to grass til failure. The doctors all think it could be due to dehydration that exacerbated it and brought me here, which is the most plausible thing I could think of. I don’t do a good job of keeping myself hydrated. However, I also don’t drink alcohol, I don’t do any drugs, I don’t have any diagnosed autoimmune disorders, etc. So I guess the real lesson is that I need to drink more water.

For anyone else that sees this, while this condition is relatively uncommon in general exertion-based contexts, CLEARLY anything is possible even if others tell you that there’s no chance for you to get this unless you’re doing an Iron Man-level workout for hours on end. Be safe out there.

I’m a 19-year-old community college student with a 4.0 GPA, currently completing a psychology transfer degree. My long-term goal is a PhD in clinical psychology, with particular interests in clinical research, cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology, and psychology-law.

I currently work part-time as a Behavioral Health Technician in ABA. I have around 350 hours of direct clinical experience, including behavioral data collection, clinical documentation, following treatment protocols, and working with clients and families. I am grateful for the experience, but I know I do not want to remain in ABA or move into another technician-style behavioral-health role.

I also have an affiliation with a cognitive-neuroscience lab, but it has produced almost no substantive research experience because I have been unable to obtain the university credentials needed for CITI training and IRB-related work. At this point, my only real contribution there was helping pilot an fMRI protocol. This is part of why finding an actual paid research position feels so important.

I went on probably an excessive job search hahaha, searching across university, hospital, research institute, nonprofit, remote, and general job boards. I identified 110 job entries, 89 unique career-related positions or programs after removing duplicates, 70 immediate rejections because they violated at least one constraint, 17 possibilities that still required investigating major issues, 2 positions that were actually recommended for an application, 1 strong immediate priority, 0 literal perfect fits, since even the strongest option had unresolved screening and scheduling concerns.

I have built a résumé, CV, transcript packet, reference list, two research-writing samples, and tailored cover letters for at least seven opportunities. I also completed a full application for the strongest remote university research-assistant position, including a cover letter and three references.

The problem is that my constraints eliminate nearly everything. I do not have a bachelor’s degree yet, most clinical-research jobs are full-time, and many part-time university jobs are temporary or pay below my minimum. My current availability is mainly Tuesday and Thursday evenings plus Friday, although more days could open if I left my current job. I am looking for roughly 15 to 20 hours per week, with $24/hour as my absolute floor and $25-26/hour preferred.

Meanwhile, my current ABA hours ($22/hr) are extremely inconsistent because of client cancellations, school obligations, and occasional sick days. I am averaging around six hours per week and often working fewer than ten. I am officially not making enough to sustain my current expenses.

I have more than $100 per month in subscriptions that I consider necessary, a $250 car payment, food expenses (which I could admittedly reduce, although there is not always food available at home), and goals like building an emergency fund, contributing to a Roth IRA, and saving for a MacBook that will hopefully carry me through my undergraduate work and eventual doctoral studies. I recognize that retirement contributions and a new laptop are financial goals rather than immediate necessities, but even after separating those out, my income is too unreliable.

That being said, I am struggling with when persistence becomes impractical. A research job paying $20 to $25 per hour would be far more valuable for graduate-school applications, mentorship, recommendation letters, and eventual publications. An unrelated job might pay more, offer stable hours, and solve the immediate financial problem, but do almost nothing for the career I am trying to build.

At what point should a student stop holding out for career relevance and prioritize stable income? Would it be smarter to take the best-paying reliable job I can find for 15 to 20 hours per week and continue applying for research positions on the side? Should I accept lower-paid research work because of its future value, or is that a bad trade when I am already financially unstable?

I do not want to sacrifice the long-term plan for short-term money, but I also cannot build a research career while earning six hours of pay per week.

I’m a 19-year-old community college student with a 4.0 GPA, currently completing a psychology transfer degree. My long-term goal is a PhD in clinical psychology, with particular interests in clinical research, cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology, and psychology-law.

I currently work part-time as a Behavioral Health Technician in ABA. I have around 350 hours of direct clinical experience, including behavioral data collection, clinical documentation, following treatment protocols, and working with clients and families. I am grateful for the experience, but I know I do not want to remain in ABA or move into another technician-style behavioral-health role.

I also have an affiliation with a cognitive-neuroscience lab, but it has produced almost no substantive research experience because I have been unable to obtain the university credentials needed for CITI training and IRB-related work. At this point, my only real contribution there was helping pilot an fMRI protocol. This is part of why finding an actual paid research position feels so important.

I went on probably an excessive job search hahaha, searching across university, hospital, research institute, nonprofit, remote, and general job boards. I identified 110 job entries, 89 unique career-related positions or programs after removing duplicates, 70 immediate rejections because they violated at least one constraint, 17 possibilities that still required investigating major issues, 2 positions that were actually recommended for an application, 1 strong immediate priority, 0 literal perfect fits, since even the strongest option had unresolved screening and scheduling concerns.

I have built a résumé, CV, transcript packet, reference list, two research-writing samples, and tailored cover letters for at least seven opportunities. I also completed a full application for the strongest remote university research-assistant position, including a cover letter and three references.

The problem is that my constraints eliminate nearly everything. I do not have a bachelor’s degree yet, most clinical-research jobs are full-time, and many part-time university jobs are temporary or pay below my minimum. My current availability is mainly Tuesday and Thursday evenings plus Friday, although more days could open if I left my current job. I am looking for roughly 15 to 20 hours per week, with $24/hour as my absolute floor and $25-26/hour preferred.

Meanwhile, my current ABA hours ($22/hr) are extremely inconsistent because of client cancellations, school obligations, and occasional sick days. I am averaging around six hours per week and often working fewer than ten. I am officially not making enough to sustain my current expenses.

I have more than $100 per month in subscriptions that I consider necessary, a $250 car payment, food expenses (which I could admittedly reduce, although there is not always food available at home), and goals like building an emergency fund, contributing to a Roth IRA, and saving for a MacBook that will hopefully carry me through my undergraduate work and eventual doctoral studies. I recognize that retirement contributions and a new laptop are financial goals rather than immediate necessities, but even after separating those out, my income is too unreliable.

That being said, I am struggling with when persistence becomes impractical. A research job paying $20 to $25 per hour would be far more valuable for graduate-school applications, mentorship, recommendation letters, and eventual publications. An unrelated job might pay more, offer stable hours, and solve the immediate financial problem, but do almost nothing for the career I am trying to build.

At what point should a student stop holding out for career relevance and prioritize stable income? Would it be smarter to take the best-paying reliable job I can find for 15 to 20 hours per week and continue applying for research positions on the side? Should I accept lower-paid research work because of its future value, or is that a bad trade when I am already financially unstable?

I do not want to sacrifice the long-term plan for short-term money, but I also cannot build a research career while earning six hours of pay per week.

I’m a 19-year-old community college student with a 4.0 GPA, currently completing a psychology transfer degree. My long-term goal is a PhD in clinical psychology, with particular interests in clinical research, cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology, and psychology-law.

I currently work part-time as a Behavioral Health Technician in ABA. I have around 350 hours of direct clinical experience, including behavioral data collection, clinical documentation, following treatment protocols, and working with clients and families. I am grateful for the experience, but I know I do not want to remain in ABA or move into another technician-style behavioral-health role.

I also have an affiliation with a cognitive-neuroscience lab, but it has produced almost no substantive research experience because I have been unable to obtain the university credentials needed for CITI training and IRB-related work. At this point, my only real contribution there was helping pilot an fMRI protocol. This is part of why finding an actual paid research position feels so important.

I went on probably an excessive job search hahaha, searching across university, hospital, research institute, nonprofit, remote, and general job boards. I identified 110 job entries, 89 unique career-related positions or programs after removing duplicates, 70 immediate rejections because they violated at least one constraint, 17 possibilities that still required investigating major issues, 2 positions that were actually recommended for an application, 1 strong immediate priority, 0 literal perfect fits, since even the strongest option had unresolved screening and scheduling concerns.

I have built a résumé, CV, transcript packet, reference list, two research-writing samples, and tailored cover letters for at least seven opportunities. I also completed a full application for the strongest remote university research-assistant position, including a cover letter and three references.

The problem is that my constraints eliminate nearly everything. I do not have a bachelor’s degree yet, most clinical-research jobs are full-time, and many part-time university jobs are temporary or pay below my minimum. My current availability is mainly Tuesday and Thursday evenings plus Friday, although more days could open if I left my current job. I am looking for roughly 15 to 20 hours per week, with $24/hour as my absolute floor and $25-26/hour preferred.

Meanwhile, my current ABA hours ($22/hr) are extremely inconsistent because of client cancellations, school obligations, and occasional sick days. I am averaging around six hours per week and often working fewer than ten. I am officially not making enough to sustain my current expenses.

I have more than $100 per month in subscriptions that I consider necessary, a $250 car payment, food expenses (which I could admittedly reduce, although there is not always food available at home), and goals like building an emergency fund, contributing to a Roth IRA, and saving for a MacBook that will hopefully carry me through my undergraduate work and eventual doctoral studies. I recognize that retirement contributions and a new laptop are financial goals rather than immediate necessities, but even after separating those out, my income is too unreliable.

That being said, I am struggling with when persistence becomes impractical. A research job paying $20 to $25 per hour would be far more valuable for graduate-school applications, mentorship, recommendation letters, and eventual publications. An unrelated job might pay more, offer stable hours, and solve the immediate financial problem, but do almost nothing for the career I am trying to build.

At what point should a student stop holding out for career relevance and prioritize stable income? Would it be smarter to take the best-paying reliable job I can find for 15 to 20 hours per week and continue applying for research positions on the side? Should I accept lower-paid research work because of its future value, or is that a bad trade when I am already financially unstable?

I do not want to sacrifice the long-term plan for short-term money, but I also cannot build a research career while earning six hours of pay per week.

The title is fairly self-explanatory, but I have a few gripes with the current contribution tag system. When I say gripes, I mean that lightly. This is just Reddit. But still, I see the system as far from optimal for what it tries to represent.

Simply put, I think contribution tags, both post- and comment-related, would be far more meaningful and indicative of quality if they rolled over into an all-time count.

There are, of course, downsides to this directly:

- For example, if the top contribution (almost always a post) in a subreddit gains tens or even hundreds of thousands of upvotes... that person is virtually guaranteed to have a secured spot at the top for the entirety of that subreddit's existence, even if they fall off the face of the earth the next week. I don't think a "hall of fame" effect is the intended goal (although it would still be more meaningful than what we have now).

- It also makes it significantly more difficult for others to push past the top contribution threshold.

However, I don't think starting on a clean slate every month is the best alternative. After all, a bigger threshold lends more gravity and meaning to the tag itself.

Someone who contributes every single month has to start over on the 1st of the new month, no matter how great their contributions have been. In a way, it disregards an offshoot of the principle that the best predictor of the future is the past. Contributors who have shown over months or years to retain their place among the top signify that they are likely to produce quality posts/comments going forward as well, and the tag tells readers, "Hey, the community favors what this person says; maybe I should pay greater heed to it."

Unfortunately, that effect is lost when contribution does not roll over, and the tally starts over at the beginning of the new month. There is essentially no more historical "lore" (for lack of a better word) or "pull" to the user that signifies I should listen to them, and they become another voice in the crowd.

Giving it more thought, I think a roll-over all-time contribution isn't the best solution either. There are a number of ways to identify top contributors. For example:

Specifically for Top Commenter: given based on % total share of net upvotes WITHIN a given thread, across all threads the user has ever commented on, and then normalized based on thread size or traction (i.e., a top comment with 2 upvotes because the original post got no traction doesn't weigh much against a comment with 2,000 upvotes in a top post). So it goes from a ranked list of who got the most upvotes this month to ranking based on all-time share of thread impact.

Something like: Contribution Reputation = normalized thread impact x consistency x breadth x engagement quality x time weight

Suppose I leave a comment that receives 2,000 net upvotes in a thread where the next-highest comments have 1,700, 900, and 600. That says considerably more than receiving 2,000 upvotes in a gigantic thread where twenty comments received 10,000+. You could percentile-rank the comment within its own thread, account for total thread engagement, and then aggregate those percentiles across someone's commenting history. Suddenly, you are measuring something much closer to repeated relative performance rather than raw exposure.

Of course, this issue is neither here nor there. If the tag is just for vanity, then none of this matters. But it's something I've been thinking about as someone who is routinely a top contributor in multiple communities. Perhaps I'm subconsciously biased, and this is just some form of prideful "status protection" (lol, imagine that, protecting my Reddit status). Anywho, what are your thoughts?

The title is fairly self-explanatory, but I have a few gripes with the current contribution tag system. When I say gripes, I mean that lightly. This is just Reddit. But still, I see the system as far from optimal for what it tries to represent.

Simply put, I think contribution tags, both post- and comment-related, would be far more meaningful and indicative of quality if they rolled over into an all-time count.

There are, of course, downsides to this directly:

- For example, if the top contribution (almost always a post) in a subreddit gains tens or even hundreds of thousands of upvotes... that person is virtually guaranteed to have a secured spot at the top for the entirety of that subreddit's existence, even if they fall off the face of the earth the next week. I don't think a "hall of fame" effect is the intended goal (although it would still be more meaningful than what we have now).

- It also makes it significantly more difficult for others to push past the top contribution threshold.

However, I don't think starting on a clean slate every month is the best alternative. After all, a bigger threshold lends more gravity and meaning to the tag itself.

Someone who contributes every single month has to start over on the 1st of the new month, no matter how great their contributions have been. In a way, it disregards an offshoot of the principle that the best predictor of the future is the past. Contributors who have shown over months or years to retain their place among the top signify that they are likely to produce quality posts/comments going forward as well, and the tag tells readers, "Hey, the community favors what this person says; maybe I should pay greater heed to it."

Unfortunately, that effect is lost when contribution does not roll over, and the tally starts over at the beginning of the new month. There is essentially no more historical "lore" (for lack of a better word) or "pull" to the user that signifies I should listen to them, and they become another voice in the crowd.

Giving it more thought, I think a roll-over all-time contribution isn't the best solution either. There are a number of ways to identify top contributors. For example:

Specifically for Top Commenter: given based on % total share of net upvotes WITHIN a given thread, across all threads the user has ever commented on, and then normalized based on thread size or traction (i.e., a top comment with 2 upvotes because the original post got no traction doesn't weigh much against a comment with 2,000 upvotes in a top post). So it goes from a ranked list of who got the most upvotes this month to ranking based on all-time share of thread impact.

Something like: Contribution Reputation = normalized thread impact x consistency x breadth x engagement quality x time weight

Suppose I leave a comment that receives 2,000 net upvotes in a thread where the next-highest comments have 1,700, 900, and 600. That says considerably more than receiving 2,000 upvotes in a gigantic thread where twenty comments received 10,000+. You could percentile-rank the comment within its own thread, account for total thread engagement, and then aggregate those percentiles across someone's commenting history. Suddenly, you are measuring something much closer to repeated relative performance rather than raw exposure.

Of course, this issue is neither here nor there. If the tag is just for vanity, then none of this matters. But it's something I've been thinking about as someone who is routinely a top contributor in multiple communities. Perhaps I'm subconsciously biased, and this is just some form of prideful "status protection" (lol, imagine that, protecting my Reddit status). Anywho, what are your thoughts?

Hey everyone!

I recently (as in, today) started pickling things, and it seems like a really fun thing to do for snacks or for toppings. I started off by making some sweet pickled jalapeños, using a basic recipe with granulated sugar, water, white wine vinegar, peppercorns, and garlic. It's delicious, but I've just started a diet. Can I use low-calorie natural sweeteners instead of sugar when pickling?

In my mind, I'm thinking something along the lines of monk fruit sweetener or maybe stevia (although stevia has a more distinct taste to me than monk fruit).

I did a tiny bit of research, and I know sugar plays an important role in the actual preservation of the pickles (something to do with bacteria?) as well as keeping their plump, firm texture over the long term. I'm not sure how replacing sugar might affect this.

Also, assuming the answer is yes, what sweeteners do you guys recommend for the best results?

Thanks in advance!

Obligatory "I just finished the show 15 minutes ago, and now I feel sentimental" post.

My (19M) dad and I enjoy picking TV shows to watch together and then slowly consuming them over the coming weeks or months. He's shown me a lot of his favorites, this being one of them, of course, and perhaps it's just fresh on me, but I think this one was my favorite.

Naturally, I did not know what to expect at first. It seemed like a slow drama about a bunch of drab business. Drab business, and cheating, of course. While I do not remember, my dad recalls me saying something to the effect of "Does anything ever happen in this show?" within the first few episodes.

I'm quite an empathetic person, and I also value family and greatly look forward to having one someday. So it is difficult, even in fictional media, not to put myself in the shoes of the family members as if they will be the ones I will have. And so, seeing them oblivious to Don's disdain and lies was very unpleasant. I felt terrible for Betty. I didn't like the cheating scenes. It felt gross. I felt disgusted looking at it. In fact, it made me actually angry. I had to look away at some scenes, and sometimes it was just out of disappointment.

But as I continued to watch the show, naturally, everyone grew on me (except Pete... at first).

Of course, and maybe it's just my low exposure to more TV shows due to the limited time I've lived on this Earth thus far, but Mad Men did a spectacular job of drawing so many characters, some of whom you'd expect to stay on the side, and making them immensely dynamic. They all had a story, and they all developed. The characters I loved in season one certainly weren't the ones I loved by season seven.

Harry Crane went from a lovable nice-guy to a scumbag. Pete Campbell, on the other hand, was my least favorite character in season one. Now, was he my favorite by season seven? No. But he went from a cheating, lying, stuck-up pretty boy... to kind of a decent guy.

Then, of course, there is Don Draper. Now, he's Don--you gotta love him. But at the same time, you kinda have to hate him too. And you have to feel bad for him, or maybe you don't. I'm not sure if I did. He was clearly a broken man, perhaps with a bit of a power complex, in need of control. But there is still no excusing what he did to his family. I think the biggest victims of the show are Sally, Bobby, and Gene. We connect the most with Sally because she grows to be a young lady by the end of the show, so naturally I feel the worst for her. Not to mention that she was a firsthand witness to her father's lies. But all of them are truly victims at the end of it. And then they are forced to lose their mother, who, while I disliked her by the end of the show, is ultimately a victim too. There was also her whole fat arc followed by her dark hair arc that the writers seemingly did away with, unexplained. I really felt that was unneeded, but then I realized they did it for real-life reasons (pregnancy), so I understand. I still don't get the dark hair, though.

My only quarrel with the show is the sheer amount of infidelity. If you couldn't tell by now, I really hate cheating. No, this is not due to personal experience. I just hate the thought of it in general. And I can safely say that I was subjected to more fictional depictions of infidelity in this TV series than I have ever consumed in all other forms of media, both fictional and nonfictional, in my entire life combined. At a certain point--I think after the first time Don cheats on Megan--all the female "love interests" in the show completely lost their gravity to me. At that point, it wasn't a representation of something "sexy" or "liberating"; it just felt desperate. It just disappointed me. In some ways, it made me realize that Don is one of the few characters in the show who doesn't change, at least not until the very end. That's what I took from it, and maybe that was the point. Even so, you still love the characters, and it makes getting angry at them feel so much more real, and in that way it draws you into the show more. Because, no matter what, you're glued to them.

Needless to say, I loved the show. I had to get this out somewhere because I don't know anyone else my age who has seen it. Despite my quarrels, I felt like I really got to know the characters. I mean, over the course of 7 seasons, you really do watch them grow up.

I am a part-time behavioral health technician, and I have had no shortage of sessions where the client is coughing and sneezing the whole time. Sometimes it looks like a cold, and other times it seems like something worse. Of course, if they have a fever or are vomiting, I've never had parents hold a session. But barring the worst, my clientele have usually stuck it out to have a session while the kids are sick.

Putting myself in the parents' shoes, I can understand this. I am rendering necessary health-related services to their child, and that naturally comes as a priority.

On the other hand... I am a college student. I work this job because I need it to pay for things, but I also have academic and extracurricular obligations that are necessary for my long-term career development. Getting sick also renders me unable to have sessions for the period that I am ill, and I have to call off. That means I am not getting paid those days, and those kids are not getting services rendered to them. Not to mention that getting sick just sucks, and I honestly don't want to feel miserable for 3 days just because some little kid coughed all over me.

I'm not bothered enough to simply say "no" to those sessions. I always go to them unless it is very clear the kid is just not going to be present today because of how sick he is. But am I right to feel peeved when I show up and the kid is coughing all over the place?