ChatGPT?
Seriously though, this is such a weird reply and doesn't fit at all with the account's previous comments. Also has that kind of not-quote-right feel that a lot of ai generated content has
Yeah, nah, no way this can be taken at face value. If you've never flown before, this would be apparent to your instructor before you'd even got in the plane.
I haven't flown for a while, but three things jump immediately to mind
- The absence of your log book
- Not knowing how to do a walk around inspection (yeah, I'm calling bs on that too)
- Banter with the instructor
Sims can be good for some things, especially learning avionics systems. But you can't replicate bouncing around in a single piston engine plane with the noise and sensations. If you haven't ever done it before you're not going to competently instantly fly the aircraft.
Meh, I landed the plane my first intro flight out, just from dicking around as a kid, on sims. There are people with thousands of hours of vr sim experience.
Thanks, but beings that both of us understood the concept of self preservation, we were both aware that him having his hands on the controls was required. As you’re probably aware, I could easily feel his inputs, including the times that he helped. I turned, he helped align, and I did the tail end of the decent and touchdown. He helped keep it down once down. But, I think you’ve missed the point of what I’m saying.
I assumed you're saying someone with exclusively sim experience could do a decent landing on the first try (that is: on center line, no bounces, not too hard, no floating for thousands of feet) & without much help. Please correct if my assumption is wrong.
I just don't think that's possible. Most CFIs will be making inputs to make sure the landing doesn't endanger anyone. The student won't even realize it's the instructor making these corrections as they'll think it's the wind acting upon the control surfaces that are pushing the controls a bit. What I'm essentially saying is that the instructor was helping you way more than you think he was.
Sims don't really teach how to make good landings because you don't feel how hard the landing was.
> Sims don't really teach how to make good landings because you don't feel how hard the landing was.
There are clear indicators for how hard the landing was. It would be a terrible sim otherwise. It's clear your experience with sims is extremely limited.
You might want to define "flop" and specify a timeframe if you're offering a bet like this
Some suggestions:
* will sell less than x units in the y months after it becomes available
* is discontinued within y months
* will not make it to version n
* will bring in less than $x revenue/profit in [timeframe]
* will lose its link at the top of the apple website within y months
It's also hard to tell what Apple's internal expectations are. They may expect to only sell 100, or they may be expecting to sell 100 million. My guess is it's a "feeler" product to guage demand while they work on v2
which I thought was odd when I read the arstechnica article and saw the chart which showed the beast at ~59,000kg, or 59 tons, but then I remembered that our tons (tonnes) are 1000kg and the US ones are about 907kg
If you're considering Montessori, there's a few things I need to warn you of (I speak as a parent who's put 4 children through)
1. You'll never look at normal schooling the same way again. You'll find the thought of sending your kinds to a traditional school depressing and wonder how anyone can think it's a good idea
2. Every parent/teacher you who finds out you send your kids to a non-traditional school, and who hasn't experience of them, will find the need to defend traditional schooling
3. Unless you're lucky enough to have access to a Montessori high school, or you're able to homeschool, you'll have to face the day when you send your kids back into a normal school.
I went through a Montessori school and struggled to make the transition to regular education resulting in poor grades, mostly due to me being bored. On one hand it lets syudents explore curiosity but on the otherhand it doesn't teach important skills like paying attention. As I learned in college not everything can be learned by doing, or perhaps that it would take too long to do everything by hand.
I had to learn these the hard way, my
and cannot recommended the system. Interestingly in practice Montessori education is not a chouce between traditional and experimental education, but rather a choice between dysfunctional public schools or experimental education.
I think my kids are having the same problem (boredom) as you did.
What do you mean by "paying attention"? One of the thinks I really like about Montessori, and I'm guessing each school is different, is that the children are able to develop long attention spans and learn to stay focused on something for as long as they like; half a day is not uncommon, and an entire day is possible. Normal school allows children just long enough to become absorbed in something, then interrupts them with "change class!". Montessori allows that child so keep focused on their activity (drawing a map, writing a story, maths, etc) for as long as they want.
The up-side is that I've found Montessori to be a very efficient means of learning. My kids have no homework and an enjoyable relaxing day, but they're far ahead of their friends in normal schools.
Down-side is, like you say, low tollerence for droning teachers and being bored
I think what frozenport means with 'paying attention' is paying attention when not in an active and participating role and more in a passive, listening role. Where it's much harder to stay focused. But like frozenport said it is necessary to acquire a lot of knowledge reasonable fast in a college setting for example.
Self study is also an option (I have seen many do it) but not everyone is good at that.
>>keep focused on their activity (drawing a map, writing a story, maths, etc) for as long as they want.
Kids can play a video-game for 8 hours straight. Focusing on something you don't want to do, or is hard to do, is a better indicator of discipline.
>>but they're far ahead of their friends in normal schools.
The real problem isn't the failure of an educational style but rather particular institutions. Where I grew up the kids who went to good private schools were at the same level as us. As I wrote earlier we often compare apples to oranges when we compare against Montessori schools, comparing bad (public) to Montessori(more expensive, private). If we can't find a familiarly priced or ranked school, with a similar level of parent involvement, we should avoid making a judgement about the method.
I went to a Montessori preschool for a year or two before doing public schooling K-12, and in retrospect I think it worked out pretty well. I was in Montessori for a short enough time that I didn't feel too weird during the switch (although I distinctly remember wondering why Kindergarten was so easy compared to preschool), but long enough that I was way ahead of most of the other kindergarteners. Then in the following years I was put into various accelerated learning groups with the other smart kids. Once you're in that group it's pretty easy to get a good education, even in public school (that or I got lucky with good public school teachers).
Thanks heaps for this. I think one of the problems is that they expect when they hire an expensive "expert" they then trust that expert's advice, same as they would advice from a lawyer or accountant. Me coming along and saying "No! don't do that" comes off to them the same as if I complained about advice from their accountant.
The above links are good and I'll read them when I get a break and apss them along. As for the hiding elements, I just plain said I wouldn't do it, but the rest I've less grounds on which to object. In short, I want them to do what's best for them
It lists the meta tags Google uses, and clearly states that all other meta tags are ignored. Of course the keywords tag is not listed, so you can categorically show your client that Google does not use the keywords tag.
"Keyword stuffing" refers to the practice of loading a webpage with keywords or numbers in an attempt to manipulate a site's ranking in Google search results. Often these keywords appear in a list or group, or out of context (not as natural prose). Filling pages with keywords or numbers results in a negative user experience, and can harm your site's ranking. Focus on creating useful, information-rich content that uses keywords appropriately and in context.
A few bullet-points of examples follow, including one about lists of cities one is trying to rank for.
