Looking at page 40 tells me that no one reviewed the full document before publishing. With all those bookrunners and co-managers listed at the front, none of them bothered to look through the presentation? If no one even looked at those numbers, I would be curious if anyone checked the numbers.
They even make a joke about this in the Ghostbasket episode. Bandit is pretending to be a realtor and Chilli remarks that the house is a bit small, to which he replies "it's bigger on the inside"
I think there is another element at play in these videos: in addition to being well-trained and paying attention, these lifeguards also know these kids.
I think they recognize some of the kids and are on alert-- in at least one video, the lifeguard jumps in a mere 2 seconds after the kid slides off the float, and there are others that are similarly fast. Of course, it could also be that they happened to be looking at just the right time. However, in the 2-second one, the lifeguard turns to look at someone below them who splashes, then turns straight back to the section of the pool with the kid who then slides off, and in she jumps.
In some cases I would guess that they either know the regular kids, or they've been watching and gradually adding/removing kids from a mental list of high-risk candidates to keep an eye on. In other words, their excellent response times are aided by both their ability to recognize the signs as well as context gained throughout the summer or that day.
I watched a few videos and found myself analyzing how good swimmers each were and got a lot better at spotting danger by noting who looked good and checking on them less often. So I don't think you need to KNOW the kids over multiple visits, but just constantly scanning for and assessing skill level.
I agree, there are some that appear more competent and others that seem less so. Granted, all are capable of panicking and needing assistance, but prioritizing does look like an effective strategy.
i did about 20 and in a couple of the "2 second" ones i had already clicked the person the lifeguard rescued 2 or 3 times before they fell off. My best time was -15s.
This would be a lot more interesting if there were videos where the lifeguard did not need to jump in, or where you had to pick within 4 or 5 seconds who you thought would need rescuing - the site didn't support this, per the "2 second" style ones i was clicking the obvious child repeatedly before the "game" decided to score it.
Whoa! I didn't even realize the page is like a game! I was just watching them like embedded YouTube videos, not understanding that I could click on the video to see if I was correct and getting a score.
I just put all 6 of the examples above into Excel as text, then used DATEVALUE to parse them. It worked correctly for all 6. However, in the immediate parent comment, you mention d/m/y format, which 3 of the examples above could not be, so perhaps the details of the issue you've encountered are more subtle (such as 2-digit years that require context to determine the century); but, at present, it looks like DATEVALUE handles this well.
I'm not familiar with the C-suite level, but I can confirm that my local CFA's operator is routinely working various positions at his store. When he isn't, he's sitting at a table working on paperwork.
I'm there a lot (some would say too much, but I wholeheartedly disagree!), and it's odd to pass through without seeing him. He works the register, he takes orders in the drive through, he directs traffic in the parking lot, he carries orders out-- everything. I'm certain that he's done shifts in the kitchen as well, just that I couldn't seem him to know.
Just today, I went into the restroom to wash my hands and he was cleaning the stall.
reply