The scary part of the day was I had to ride a bike there. My vice principal lent me his bike. I have not ridden since about 4th grade, I pretty much gave up biking after careening into the neighbor's hedge trying to make a turn too fast. Needless to say, that awesome ability has not left me. At one point a nailed a post taking the majority of the force on my knee. It will leave a bruise but I'm not seriously injured. I wobbled onward. On the ride home I could have lost a limb and still had a smile on my face.
*Anyone that knows me knows I am pretty obsessed with dimensions (such as the dimension of length is the meter, the dim of force is the Netwon, the dim of pleasure is the hedons - I kid you not - peasants probably call these "units" but I didn't get no degree in physics to NOT lord that knowledge over you). I frequently make up new units and dimensions for various things. At the mid year seminar the dance group talked about dancing with "100% smile" this, I feel, is the proper unit of smile. Smile is obviously an absolute quantity and it only makes sense to measure it accordingly. Much like setting the speed of light as your benchmark, "c", and measuring things in accordance (for example 50% the speed of light would be written .5c instead of 149,896,229m/s). It sounds like a little thing to do, but it cleans up a lot of equations. Smile should be measured like that! Thus I propose "s", such that 1s = 100% smile = a complete full smile. I am not sure how I feel about negative smile, for example, does -1s = -100% smile = a complete frown? Do the following identities follow: -1s = 1f and 1s = -1f? Future rigorous mathematics will be needed to see if this is a valid corollary. Remember the smile is a relatively new unit, some of its more unexpected properties have not been fully explored. Future updates may follow.