Not much has been happening in my life that has been worth posting about lately. I’ve been keeping myself busy doing lots of writing and website design, and I’ve been using my downtime to mull over a couple of future projects. The article is coming along nicely; I have all the material I need to finish it now, and I may have another look at it on Sunday. I’ve been avoiding reading the article for the last week so that I can approach it freshly when I do; it’s often the case that if I work on something for several weeks then I just can’t edit it impartially.
What with all the website work (the fruits of which are unlikely to become public for some time), I’ve had to relearn a lot of CSS. And amazingly enough, it’s making an awful lot of sense now. I’ve reached the stage where I can create an entire website from scratch in a text editor, without checking it in a browser, and have a reasonably good chance of it looking like what I intended it to be. All I say is, roll on ubiquitous SVG support in browsers, then things’ll look really good.
I managed to pass my driving theory test on my second go today. Now, before you cry out, ‘For shame, Adrian!’, that I failed first time, let me remind you that this isn’t the theory test of old. No, it has a new hazard perception test, which essentially is a glorified (or rather, simplified) game where you have to click on ‘developing hazards’ while watching a video of someone driving.
While it is not particularly difficult to pass the hazard perception test, providing you know what you’re supposed to do (which I didn’t, the first time around), I can’t see the point of it. It’s not going to improve my hazard perception while driving – I can already drive perfectly well. The very notion that you could test such an ability using such a crude program is laughable; as an experimental psychologist, I only wish it was that easy. In reality though, it’s far better for the examiner to assess this during the proper driving test.
One Reply to “Busy busy”
Yes – and if you think too hard about the hazard perception test, you could make a reasonable case for almost anything festured to be classed as a “potential” hazard – and I’m sure you could argue for several non-answers to be classed as “developing” hazards too. One of those things you either should do, and not think about, or you have to work out what answer they want, not what actually answers the question…