EPTClasses like that, however, are the first to go during budget crises, which is likely a big part of why they are not as prevalent as they should be.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 746
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
Classes like that, however, are the first to go during budget crises, which is likely a big part of why they are not as prevalent as they should be. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Huh I looked over some websites about these baby simulators. I can't beleive it's a real thing. Also I can't understand the point of these lessons. Is there a need to teach people that babies need to be fed when crying and are delicate and shouldn't be shaken? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
As for the utility of the class, I cannot say objectively, but as the son of an expert on infant death, spreading seemingly basic knowledge regarding not shaking a baby to make it stop crying definitely has its merits. Sudden infant death is a notable problem around my corner of the US, particularly relative to the lower class. Cosleeping deaths, for example, are a way bigger problem than many would think. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On November 02 2019 01:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: And what would that entail? What do YOU think such an education should be? Everyone has different opinions. Every family is different, even individual parents would have different opinions. . Child psychology and 'what not to do' mainly. I'd prefer a scientific approach, to give students a general understanding of the "young mind" and how they can avoid screwing up their kids. On November 02 2019 01:47 Danglars wrote: This would get tied up in politics so fast your head would spin. Only if we keep playing the blame game, which funnily enough is a direct product of bad parenting. Keeping the upper hand by reminding the other party of their wrongdoing is a behavior pattern, people with low self esteem cling to and can be seen in politics around the globe. Most politicians or people aspiring to power have a basic desire for validation from others, to boost their self esteem, to find a purpose. They've never learned that true happiness comes from self acceptance, not validation. Because only by self acceptance you can find a real fulfilling purpose in life. But that's just another example how bad parenting can result in bad/(self-)abusive behavior patterns. Teaching child psychology and child education to future parents might lead to breaking those abusive patterns and hopefully a better society. But that might just be wishful thinking on my part. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23619 Posts
On November 02 2019 03:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Thank farvacola. Still can't beleive this is actually a thing. I took the class and it doubled as a sex ed class for kids who had missed it otherwise (Sex ed is not required or expected to be fact based in many states). As to it's effectiveness I can't say, a girl who put her baby sim in the trunk to hangout and drink turned out to be one of the better moms of my class and a girl who aced it lost all her kids in a custody battle. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 02 2019 06:49 thePunGun wrote: Only if we keep playing the blame game, which funnily enough is a direct product of bad parenting. Keeping the upper hand by reminding the other party of their wrongdoing is a behavior pattern, people with low self esteem cling to and can be seen in politics around the globe. Most politicians or people aspiring to power have a basic desire for validation from others, to boost their self esteem, to find a purpose. They've never learned that true happiness comes from self acceptance, not validation. Because only by self acceptance you can find a real fulfilling purpose in life. But that's just another example how bad parenting can result in bad/(self-)abusive behavior patterns. Teaching child psychology and child education to future parents might lead to breaking those abusive patterns and hopefully a better society. But that might just be wishful thinking on my part. I’m pretty jaded on this. It’s a very pretty thing to campaign for better education, and blame the entry of politics into it as some result of bad parenting of others. We don’t live in that utopia, where infallible scientists dictate fact-based child rearing norms to teenage children. You’ll have to argue it out with your fellow citizens. Maybe first it’s “who are you to think you can teach my kids how to raise their kids” and second “if scientists now regret parenting norms from scientific studies even a fucking decade ago, how are you so sure the results of this experiment won’t be called a disaster a decade later?” Im all on board for vaccination awareness, care for a fake baby for a week, impress the responsibility and cost of children in teens. I’ll add teaching about relationships, abuse, and addiction to that list. The child psych and early childhood education? Leave it to parenting books in the library and teaching the importance of community bonds and family. Make it available in low-cost community colleges. I don’t think the societal problems are solved if only teens heard about good child rearing in high school. No shit, involved parents that spend time on playing and talking with their kids. People won’t know about that unless some public school teacher pounds it into a teens head? I’m getting the vibes from the last time I read a thread all about shaming parents (or anyone supportive) for spanking their young children for rebellion. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On November 02 2019 08:13 Danglars wrote: ... “if scientists now regret parenting norms from scientific studies even a fucking decade ago, how are you so sure the results of this experiment won’t be called a disaster a decade later?”... Hence the "wishful thinking on my part". Lots of things taught in schools turned out out to be false and were corrected and updated later on. Lots of scientific thesis have turned out to be false and were disproven, too. We can only teach, what's been proven to be the best scientific method to date. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23619 Posts
Lithium batteries also store best at ~50% charge otherwise they'll degrade over time even unused. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23619 Posts
On November 13 2019 08:43 JimmiC wrote: good to know, does it continue to degrade at mostly a straight line? It's a slow steady decay for the first 500-1000 (for cell phones) then it's a pretty precipitous decline These aren't specifically cell phone batteries, but the pattern is the same. ![[image loading]](https://www.comsol.com/model/image/12667/big.png) There's other factors that can cause quicker or slower degradation but they rate them to 80% because of the steep fall off in performance after it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11737 Posts
If we take that and just look at how long it takes until a certain voltage is reached, then even the 2000 cycle battery still lasts at least 80% as long as the totally new one. Really hard to read, but if we take at the point of total collapse, it is after about 3450s in cycle 0, and at about 2900s at cycle 2000. Which is a drop of only 16%. If we take any other point, like the 3.5V point, that happens after maybe 2000s in cycle 0, and 1700s in cycle 2000, which once again is a drop of about 15%. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7054 Posts
But with more recent batteries, I remember reading that it's better for batteries to be full'ish all the time in the long term. That's why I charge my phone even when it's at 60-70% | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11737 Posts
| ||
| ||
