I will never own a self-driving car.

This isn't to say I will never ride in a self-driving car, but rather that I will never own one. Some might argue that self-driving cars won't be viable in my lifetime, or that I'm just past the point of no return to becoming a grumpy, old fart; However, there is a very large elephant in the room when it comes to autonomous vehicles that I'll choose to avoid at all costs: Liability.

My poor old Honda Jazz is coming up due for an upgrade. Today I can head down to a Volkswagon dealership an buy a new Jetta or Golf... but I won't.  These vehicles, and several others are now being fit with "active" systems to override steering and braking. Now they downplay the negative perception by calling it a "steering recommendation" and assure us that it can be overridden. Now to put it in context, how well do you think the reaction to these active, but override-able assist systems are going for Boeing right now?

I own a BMW, and the car is packed with sensors, cameras, and passive systems. If it senses I'm leaving my lane without indicating, it rumbles the steering wheel. If it thinks I'm approaching something too fast, it brings up a red car indicator in the head's up overlay. These are all passive indicators to me, the responsible, liable, control system for the vehicle. For as long as I am responsible for the control of the vehicle, or pilots are responsible for the control of an aircraft, systems like this should simply alert us to suspected problems. I can choose to act on the alert, or verify it against other inputs and ignore it. Pilots should not have to frantically flip through manuals to figure out how to turn off a system intent on planting them into the ground because it mistakenly thinks they're going to stall, and they should not be blamed for not "Reading the Fucking Manual". They shouldn't have had to. The malfunctioning sensors should have been doing nothing but warning the crew, and readily ignored and disabled when they determined it was in error. They could then figure out or remember how to disable the sensor, which is a lot simpler to do when you're not frantically fighting the system for your life.

The elephant roaming around the room with autonomous vehicles lies around liability. Who is liable when a self driving car, or even a car fitted with "recommendations" causes an accident? If I am approaching a cyclist and leave my lane to safely pass him, but my car detects I'm leaving a lane and "recommends" me back, clipping the cyclist, how do I explain that to a court? Do I even want to risk ending up in that situation? Several owners of Toyota vehicles got dragged through courts and public opinions over cases where their vehicles went through incidents of "uncontrolled acceleration". It was blamed on the drivers, and then blamed on the floor mats.  I owned a Toyota many, many years ago as they continued to press for more "drive by wire" technology, and that car suffered from a persistent problem in the winter with a single chip called the MAP sensor. This faulty chip was apparently accumulating moisture in the winter while the car was warm, but then that moisture would freeze around the chip while parked, and then melt and short it out. The car would start, but then as soon as you hit the accelerator, it would stall. (Thank goodness it didn't fault the other way and go into an uncontrollable burn-out!!) I could start it easily again, and as soon as I touched the pedal, *stall*.  In one case it played up while stopped at a red light. To get home I literally had to hammer the gas pedal. I had that damned chip replaced 3 times, and towards the end of my warranty I asked if the chip failed again next winter, would I be expected to be out of pocket? The response was less than encouraging so I sold the car that spring. (I did run into the new owner a few years later, and thanks to the warmer winters, or possibly that they did finally manage to fix that stupid sensor, he didn't have any issues with it.)

Now when it comes to the idea of a self driving car, I will not ride in a vehicle that has the ability to make its own determinations of its surrounding while offering me the ability, or responsibility to override those determinations. If a car and it's autonomous system is going to be trusted to drive the streets, then it will have to do so entirely without me. A "Johnny Cab", but without the joystick for the ridiculous car chases, and preferably without the creepy mannequin as well.

Autonomous cars should not, cannot have manual overrides. You have to be able to trust them the exact same way you trust a cab driver or a bus driver every time you step into one of these vehicles. If you have the ability to override the vehicle, then the situation becomes murky when the vehicle damages something, injures someone, or kills them. Why didn't you override, or did you override and were responsible for the crash?  If I'm in a cab, I'm not watching over the driver's shoulder, ready to overpower him and take the wheel, and I don't want that responsibility dumped on me. I don't want to pay for his speeding tickets, or any damage he causes, or have my insurance premiums/ratings affected by his mistakes. I want to trust that he is capable of getting me where I want to go reasonably safely to both me, and the people around me.

I'm not a skeptic that we cannot trust technology to be as reliable as a human being, but merely pointing out to the fact that once it can be trusted, there is no reason for me to "own" it. Companies like Uber have the right idea. Once self-driving cars are a reality, individuals don't need to own them because they will virtually be like cabs that can roam around town without needing a toilet break. You should be able to request a vehicle with criteria (such as # of seating) on demand and expect a nearby vehicle to come and pick you up. People will still have the choice to own one for themselves (like a personal chauffeur) but they will likely have to pay for extremely common, routine inspections and servicing, and have to face those nagging questions if/when their personal "Johnny" misses something or simply "flips out".  Something as simple as a splatter of bird shit could cause an autonomous controller to miss out on a critical piece of data that causes an accident, or prevent the vehicle from leaving until you get your human ass out and clean it up.

"The ideal flight crew is a computer, a pilot and a dog. The computer’s job is to fly the plane. The pilot is there to feed the dog. And the dog’s job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything."

So if you're still keen to own a self driving car, be prepared to keep that sucker polished, and remember to feed the dog.

On Statutory Warranties ( Australia Tax)

This was a curious thing when I moved to Australia, something they call the " 'stralia Tax".  Basically, even after accounting for the exchange rate, a lot of consumer goods are considerably more expensive in Australia than overseas.  Part of this can be explained by overheads of high labour costs in Australia, but not all of it. I'd seen a few inquiries into unexplainable cost differences for Australian consumers where manufacturers like Apple and others cited "consumer protection" costs... Which got me a little curious what that was about exactly.

I'd heard about something called the Statutory Warranty in passing in conversations here but no one really knew much about what it was, but that it was to blame for some of the higher prices. So I did a little digging into what it is.

Australia has consumer protection laws to help ensure that goods sold in Australia meet a certain level of quality and fit-for-use, and if not, consumers are entitled to compensation beyond voluntary warranties offered by manufacturers and retailers.

This reading was particularly well timed because our LED T.V. decided to crap out a couple days later. It was about 5.5 years old, and we had paid nearly $5000 for it at the time. I contacted the manufacturer and I was going to have to pay a minimum of $180 just to find out *if* it could be serviced. Then I checked regarding the statutory warranty and it mentioned that the warranty was with the retailer, not the manufacturers, so the first step was to negotiate with them. The retailer at first asked if we had opted for the "extended warranty" which we had not. As soon as I mentioned "statutory warranty" I was transferred to the store manager. They were quite polite and asked what we thought was a suitable resolution, which I replied that I wanted it either repaired, or replaced. After a few days they came back and said that the manufacturer wasn't going to budge, and that the TV was only expected to "live" for 5 years.  So I escalated the matter to the office of Fair Trading.

This is when things got interesting. No sooner had I received an e-mail from the OFT saying they'd be in contact with the retailer, I got another e-mail from the retailer arranging for an assessment of the T.V. at their cost.  The assessment came back that the display was faulty and that it couldn't be repaired. From there it took over a month of back & forth between the retailer and manufacturer to work out a deal. However, in the end we did receive a settlement which gave us 1/4 of the price paid towards a new T.V. of our choice provided at cost.

This raises a few interesting points. In talking with several locals about this situation, most had no idea about the statutory warranty, or expected me to get any kind of result in the matter. It also begs the question, why can retailers "sell" customers extended warranties when they are obligated to honour the statutory warranty in the first place?

The basic thing to take away from this: If you've paid a substantial amount of money for a good in Australia, and there is something wrong with it, even outside of the voluntary warranty period, it can be worth following up under the statutory warranty. Also, I can surely see no point at all to opting into extended warranties... You're already paying for one with the 'stralia Tax.

On Coke™ vs. Pepsi™

This is a border-line pedantic post, but the issue comes up so often with people that know me. #1. I don't drink coffee. Ever since I was a kid I never liked hot liquids. I don't know if it was due to getting burned at a young age but I do not enjoy drinking hot liquids. Coffee, tea, hot chocolate, even soups area often problem. I know, a Canadian that doesn't drink warm drinks... :O  Cold drinks on the other hand, yum. Even in the middle of winter I'd quite often stop off and get a Slurpie™ from 7-11.

But back to the Coke vs. Pepsi. (excuse the lack of ™ from this point, I'm bound to have forgotten one and/or use my clipboard. :) At work I bring in a can of Pepsi from home. On my way in I drop it off in the office freezer for 1 - 1.5 hours. (For the record they can go 3-4 hours without bursting.) So I sip a chilled Pepsi from around 08:00 and it lasts me until ~11:00. It's my morning pick-up and keeps my blood sugar level pretty stable through to lunch.

Some days when I'm bringing a spicy lunch I'll have a second can in the fridge with my lunch for the afternoon, however occasionally I get a craving in the other days for a second hit to get me through the afternoon. (Especially on particularly boring days) On those days I buy a Coke from the office vending machines.

People are often shocked by this, at least enough to point out that the vending machine does actually have Pepsi. There is this preconception that if you drink one of the major colas, you drink it exclusively. Frankly I never understood this, brand loyalty with soft drinks? I usually respond about the beer or wine they drink. Do they drink solely one brand? Maybe the issue is that with colas it is effectively a duopoly. It's perfectly understandable for people to have a preference, and I've noticed that if I drink one exclusively then try the other, it can taste a bit "odd". So to the question of that if the vending machine does have Pepsi, and I bring Pepsi in the morning, my preference should logically be for Pepsi, why would I buy a Coke?

The vending machine has 1 slot allocated to Pepsi and 16 slots allocated to Coke. I can drink either without qualm and by selecting Coke I don't have to worry about punching in the wrong number, plus it's very easy to see that it has stock. Both are the same price. Why then do I bring Pepsi in the morning? Pepsi 24 packs are cheaper here than Coke. I generally only pick them up when they're on sale for around $10 a pack. Coke is never that cheap.

Now the big question: If Pepsi and Coke were available for the same price in the 24 pack, which would I buy? Honestly I'd probably buy a pack of both and alternate. Well actually if all of the sodas were available for the same price, it'd probably be neither... I'd be picking up cases of Dr. Pepper, and A&W Root Beer. :)

Trust & Tradies

If there is one thing I've come to hate dealing with in Australia it is tradesmen. I've had some luck with good tradies, but for the most part almost any dealing with one could easily end up being "A Current Affair" grade material. Of course these experiences get me thinking, and writing.

It seems that tradesmen in Australia are in essence victims of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their conduct might be seen as anything from self-preservative to downright predatory. Most seem nice enough at the start, but if you let your guard down with them stuff gets slipped in unexpectedly. If you question anything that doesn't seem on the level they either get defensive or overtly deceptive. In several cases I've just had to call "Shenanigans" on them and play the bastard customer card, which I doubt is what they are trying to avoid, but by being dishonest it's what they end up with.

To begin with, I don't haggle when it comes to trades. I expect them to quote me a fair price and I choose the person that gives me the confidence that they can do the job right for a fair price. I haggle when shopping for goods from a store because a product is a product wherever I choose to buy it. However with services I know if I haggle things, my job will be the lowest priority and who knows what short-cuts they'll take.

Just now I've been on the hunt for a plumber for issues with our aging toilets. One's output valve has broken and is now leaking aside from not flushing properly. We had planned to replace all 3 toilets as the other 2 are showing their age so I found a local plumber that came in for a quote. He gave me what I thought a reasonable quote for the replacement labour, and he would supply reasonable toilets in the price range I had been pricing them out. However, he also mentioned the possibility of replacing the guts. I had tried generic parts however with the placement of these buttons the generic parts didn't fit. He thought that replacement parts might be available so I asked him to look into it. The main factor for considering fixing the existing toilet was that newer toilets have smaller cisterns than these older ones. We plan to eventually renovate the bathrooms in the next few years but with the current cisterns mounted to the walls, the replacements would leave a very unsightly damaged wall that would need to be patched and painted. So we figured to fix the broken toilet then replace the 2 remaining ones (or all 3) in a few years. Sure enough he comes back with a price for a replacement part, but at $260. (ouch! considering a replacement toilet is $270) Of course this makes me suspicious so I contact the toilet manufacturer and a reseller to confirm the part # and cost. $220. Ok, so I assumed the $260 was installed, but re-reading his e-mail it was plus installation. His earlier quote for the toilet replacements was $390 + parts. ($270x3 + consumables) When I suggested doing the repair rather than the replacements he then quoted $150 labour for the 1 toilet.. *groan*. $130 per toilet to replace the entire thing. $150 for the 15-30 minutes it'd take to swap out the one toilet's part. (I personally ripped one out to take down to Bunnings when looking at the generic replacements.) Clearly that means "It's not worth my while."  Fine, then please tell me that, just don't pad it until it is worth your while or to convince me to take the bigger job now.

Previously I had all kinds of fun with an electrician that I had to find on relatively short notice to swap out an oven when the original electrician cancelled less than a week before the cabinet guy was due to start work because he found a better job... Since the oven replacement would require unhooking the existing oven then waiting to wire in the new oven after the cabinet area was resized I planned to do a few odd jobs around the house including running a phone line, replacing some faulty switches/plugs, and removing a jury-rigged exterior light from the previous owners. The electrician quoted about 6 hours worth of work for everything but I asked if he'd agree to do it on time and materials to fit around the oven fit-out as I figured on around 3 hours worth of time. I'd skip some work if it looked like it was going to take too long. He agreed, but advised that his estimates were typically less than time and materials. In any case of course he didn't show up to do the work himself, sending one of his lackeys who ended up doing a decent job around the house. I just had him going from job to job while the cabinet guy was doing his thing. All told it took less than 3.5 hours. A few days I get an invoice for the original quoted amount, so I send a polite reminder that we had agreed on time and materials and that the job had taken 3.5 hours.  So he sends me back a breakdown of the materials with the 3.5 hours which conveniently adds up to ... You guessed it, his original quote. So I'm left digging around online wholesellers for prices on the materials he used. Fortunately he made that pretty easy by providing the part #s for what was used on the job.  Sure enough, nearly every part's price was padded by several dollars. In some cases more than double what I could have gone to Bunnings to buy the exact same part for. I could have bought a 4000m roll of wire for the price he wanted to charge for some 80m used on the day. (off a 4000+m roll) So I added up the Bunnings prices (which would have been more than he certainly paid) and sent him a payment for the adjusted amount along with an e-mail calling Shenanigans on the parts prices, what my totals came to, and that if his costs were higher to provide me with invoices or supplier details for the materials used. He never replied, but the fact is I should have never *had* to do that!

Back when I was looking to replace an exterior door (which was really just a hollow-core interior door with a knob-lock) on the garage I asked for quotes from a couple local carpenters. Both had given me reasonable hourly rates and mentioned that it would be a relatively simple job... But then each gave me quotes over $400 + parts/door. I mean I can understand that if it needed to be done as a priority that they'd want to charge me for a half-day's work, but I had been clear that since it was a small job and I worked close to home it could be done whenever was convenient between jobs. I just needed 15 minutes notice to when they wanted to stop by in order to get home. In the end I picked up the door, paint & dead-latch for $160 and did it myself with some encouragement from my boss and an offer of help if I ran into trouble. (As I've never installed a door before and didn't have much in the way of tools if the jam wasn't squared)

Now the cabinet guy on the other hand was a pleasure to work with. He did a great job, corrected a minor defect without issue, and even provided me with a few shelves from the spare material at no extra charge. (The material I had paid for, but he still took the time to cut and install them) He wasn't the cheapest quote, but was competitive with the group I got quotes for. When I do the bathrooms and kitchens I know who I can call for the cabinet work.

I don't want to be a bastard customer calling Shenanigans on tradesmen, or wasting their time when things would just be better if they'd tell the truth.

On Balance.

(Disclaimer: This is going to be a controversial topic, and may upset readers)

Something that has been bugging me lately is the level of hypocrisy that the general public exhibits quite selectively. People get so wound up by a specific topic that any discussion around it become taboo, and handled so completely irrationally compared to other significant issues. What got me thinking about this is the vilification of Rolf Harris over an alleged set of incidents in the 1980's and his more recent accusation of creating "indecent images of minors".  Now the charges from the 80's, if legitimate, are certainly serious and need to be resolved. However, I have a hard time believing this has been anything but a witch hunt. If these events happened some 30 years ago, why have the "victims" just come forward now? It's not like any obvious form of intimidation or relation that might explain the silence. In any case, light needs to be shone on Rolf's actions and the sincerity of the victims; Hopefully the courts resolve the issue fairly, but even if Rolf is acquitted, society has already judged and branded him. Looking at the more recent case brought against him over indecent images of minors, this is the topic I am writing about. Rolf is a painter. He is not the first artist to paint children in situations that can be interpreted as "indecent". However, this is a topic that has completely blinded modern society of late.

Pedophilia is a serious issue. It is wrong. It is illegal. In the strictest spirit of the law it is the exploitation of people that are considered vulnerable, are incapable of understanding the situations they are placed in, and powerless to defend themselves.

Murder is a serious issue. It is wrong. It is illegal. Rape is wrong. It is also illegal. There are lots of serious crimes that people commit that we certainly don't want to promote: And here lies the problem.

A studio can produce a film or TV series depicting mass murder, rape, drug use, domestic abuse or any other form of illegal/unlawful activity in virtually any level of realism. Game companies can build a game that immerses players in environments where they can quite graphically commit these crimes virtually. Grand Theft Auto is a commonly cited example, but one that sickened me was a game called Payday 2 which puts the players in a gang casing locations then committing extremely violent robberies. These movies and games are made, and continually press at the social limits of good taste, yet no matter how far they press there are no consequences for the people that create them.

Rolf, or any artist can paint a picture of a child in a provocative situation and he risks going to jail. A tourist returning from Japan with somewhat provocative models depicting young women in school uniforms narrowly avoided being arrested on child pornography charges. Can you see the disconnect here?

When some kid goes and shoots up a school after playing GTA 5 there are of course people advocating that violent games and movies are fueling violence. However the voices to the contrary always outweigh these. Laws don't change and the manufacture and distribution of this content continues. Parents generally don't promote violence in their children, encouraging them to go to school armed and ready for a knife fight, yet these things still happen.

When some pervert goes and abducts and rapes children gets caught with stacks of child images on their computer then the social war-cry goes out against any form of "sexualized" imagery of minors. Where are the voices that would so surely defend that exposure to violence doesn't make people violent, tout that exposure to sexualized children doesn't lead to sexual assault on children? Parents are guilty of sexualizing their own kids every day with what they let their kids wear and do. Forget child pageants, some have even gone so far as to teaching their young daughters pole dancing. Get real!

Compare these two situations:
Playing a video game where you walk up to a car, drag the driver out of a car and hit them repeatedly with a baseball bat and take their money does or does not influence someone to walk up and assault/rob someone?

Perving out at a picture of an attractive 15y.o. girl in a short skirt does or does not influence someone to go and rape a 15 year old girl?

Think about it for a minute. I'd imagine that most responses to the first scenario would range from "Probably not" to "possibly". I'd suspect that most people would respond to the second scenario as "probably" to "absolutely" An automatic reaction to those scenarios will be to justify how the two can surely not be compared, but really, why can't they? The second scenario is perverted, abnormal... So it's that much more "normal" if it's an 18y.o. girl? Someone that gets a thrill out of committing a virtual crime, do they go and commit a crime? Versus someone that gets a thrill out of an underage kid, do they go out and realise that fantasy? I cannot answer that question, but what I can see is the disconnect between the perception of the two scenarios. How can you rationalise that one is any more or less a risk than the other, and by how much?

Look at the legal/social reaction for the actual actions within the two scenarios. For the violent video game someone can play as much as they desire and there is absolutely no legal consequence. For the second scenario, that someone is possibly going to jail, and surely will be socially branded. In neither case did the individual actually DO anything.

Do I advocate that society is overreacting to underage depictions? Certainly not. I merely wish to try and expose the imbalance between very serious issues and how hypocritical we allow ourselves to be when looking at issues like this. Personally I'd like to live in a world where as a proud father I am allowed to photograph my child's public triumphs in life, and could do so without worrying other parents that have allowed themselves to be blinded and bound by irrational fears and preconceptions. Maybe things will finally change when this generation of parents realize the cost of paranoia was capturing memories and it just wasn't worth it.

On fingers.

A recent news article which headlines: "Severed fingers won't work on iPhone 5S" which should probably be followed up with " so knock the bastard out and use his finger then disable the security."

Are people really so concerned that criminals would bother to chop a finger or two off to download some porn or T.V. series before hocking your colourful plastic wonder? Really now, the fingerprint works no different to PINs or gestures etc. It's just less likely to hack. But pickpockets & thugs don't bother with that as they'll either just toss a locked phone or factory reset it if they can. If they have access to your fingers they can just threaten you to unlock it, or use your finger while you're unconscious. On that merit the 5S is "easier" to steal for the buggers that ambush people with bricks.

Or on a funnier note, do people really believe Apple actually verified this claim that it wouldn't work with a severed finger? I'd bet money that marketing's claim that the scanner "doesn't" work on severed fingers actually meant the technical people said it "shouldn't" work. It may be fun reading the news when someone de-bunks that puff of smoke.

The real criminal threat with the iPhone 5S is that idiots will actually use the biometric features on the phone and other businesses and institutions start trusting Apple's algorithms. Allowing the scanner, more importantly the phone & technology the scanner is running on, to serve as security for real-world assets makes that phone a single point of failure (or success, depending on what side you're on) for fraud; Especially on a device where people have no real knowledge or control of how "Apps" behave on it. Unlike passwords and such, fingerprint biometric data cannot be changed when you get hacked. Criminals don't need to chop off your finger to drain your bank account or steal your identity, they just need to con you into downloading another "free" app. It's very easy to slip a malicious app through the app store. This has been demonstrated by building self-modifying apps. The initial version is harmless, but as it updates with more seemingly harmless versions, it actually modifies itself into something malicious. Once it fools you into running your finger scanner with an official looking alert, or mines your biometric hash, game over.

Criminals out there are certainly not afraid of consumers adopting the biometric features of the 5S, and they're not about to start lopping off fingers because of it. If anything they welcome the feature and they're just waiting for something worth stealing to become available. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't the colourful, over-hyped piece of plastic & glass in your pocket they're after, so your digits are safe. I can't say the same for your bank account however if you choose to start using that feature.

On winning.

It is an interesting time now for my 4y.o. daughter. She's starting to show signs of being quite competitive. Competition is a healthy thing, but it can easily become destructive and disruptive. When I went through grade school the education system had a pretty strong focus on competition. There were plenty of sporting events where students would win ribbons and such for out-performing their classmates. Grades were given out as percentages so students could boast they were 2% smarter than someone else. Now it seems that schools have swung widely the other direction due to political correctness or something like that where competition is something to be scorned. I cannot imagine playing a game of soccer where they went out of their way not to keep score. This was a deal-breaker when I was considering Montessori education for my daughter. While I like the overall approach of self-discovery learning, they have a strict anti-competitive theme. (No sports teams etc.) Competition is an integral part of life, and something I strongly feel that it is something children need to experience to prepare them for independent life.

Growing up in an overtly competitive environment didn't do me any benefit. I was overly competitive and became quite irritated, even somewhat violent if I didn't win. It doesn't do well for making, and keeping friends. I'm not sure when precisely it happened but one day it all started making sense. It was such a simple thing, but so profoundly powerful when dealing with competition. I like to win, a lot. Who doesn't? Winning is fun. Or was it?

That was the profound bit. Winning = fun.  But that is completely the wrong way to look at it. Fun isn't the result of winning. Winning is the result of having fun. It works in such a simple manner. When you play to win you get tunnel vision. You're focusing on the wrong thing and you completely miss opportunities that might have given you an advantage. This leads to mistakes or becoming predictable, and the further you fall behind the more it works against you. Your movements and muscles become tense, and you are completely distracted. However, when you play to have fun, your mind is open to new possibilities. You see more, and are more relaxed. There are opportunities to try things a bit different and often that is enough of an edge on your opponent to pull off something that they aren't expecting or capable of responding to.

It may not be enough to win, but it ensures you are open to learning something new from the experience instead of making excuses. Still, if you focus on trying to have fun then winning is merely icing on the cake. A loss is still a pretty good tasting cake when all things are considered. Being a sore loser means you become a target for ridicule, or people that can help you improve won't want to. Dealing with the bragging winners can be a challenge, but the thing to remember is that while they may act like they know it all, learn everything you can from them, then savour the day that you teach them how to lose. :)

This is something I constantly need to remind myself. Sometimes my vision starts tunneling in and I start to struggle and lose. That is the time that I have to stop for a moment, relax, and realise that I'm not having fun. More often than not that is enough for me to come back in freshly from a new angle. No excuses for the equipment or environment, just a renewed focus on doing what is fun, not what I think I need to win. Now I hope to impart this on the little one to hopefully help her cope with competitive situations.