Is “pharmacists seeing more patients” really a measure of something good? I’m a non-native English speaker so cut me some slack but all I can imagine is just longer queues in the pharmacy and more tired pharmacists (and people who now need to wait in the queue now).
“pharmacists seeing more patients” Implies that the queue moves quicker.
A pharmacist can only have so much time in their shift, so being able to more effectively use that time (see more people) would be a good thing.
That’s a noble goal but does adding more people help the (long-term only, please) effectiveness? At what point does it start hindering it?
I would assume that someone like a pharmacist has to be focused all the time, stakes is high…
Do we have precise data about how physiological state of a pharmacist is changing through the shift? Do we know whether or not the pauses between people – which we might or might not have considered a wasted time – are actually essential for their ability to stay focused and reliable? (Is the answer the same for all of them?) Or maybe they could actually still use part of that time in a productive way, right? Also, why is there lack of people in the first place?
Focusing solely on adding more people to the equation seems to neglect factors like this. This tells me that whoever this factoid is trying to impress is not someone who I would want to trust with managing a pharmacy (or anything except maybe some production line) in the first place.
I second the comment about this being a reason to reduce technician hours. Worked at the busiest store in my district the last 15 years of my career. We went from 3 pharmacists with several hours overlap on weekdays, down to 2 pharmacists with no overlap. Tech hours once was high enough to have 5 technicians on between 10-6, down to only having 5 total on staff. We went from a 24 location, down to being open only 11.5 hours a day. We were one block up from a Walgreens and one block down from a RiteAid that both ended up closing, and getting most of their customers who walked there. We had 2 major exoduses of staff and lost a good number of long time patients in the enshitification.
Even in a world where some new AI model could improve pharmacist throughput, it doesn’t compare to the skeleton crewing of corporate pharmacy bottom-line-go-up.
It forces me to read everything as though I’m reading Shakespeare, except the cadence never really comes. Now I feel itchy and angry at my monitor for showing me this
I feel like you’d be able to tell from the screenshot, if it has an effect on you.
My brain tends to overanalyze individual words, which is great for spotting typos, but awful for reading speeds. This highlighting feels like it helps my brain to quickly go from word to word, and not get stuck on them.
Reading the comments on some reddit posts, it seems like it matters how your brain handles words - like there’s different types of ADD/ADHD with respect to reading (which I guess makes sense considering inattentive ADHD vs hyperactive).
Just reading some examples, for me it seems to help keep my brain on track and continue reading the words, instead of normally skipping words, losing your place, and requiring to reread the paragraph.
Is this post about Github seemingly detecting an incorrect licence? The project was relicenced in a later commit, so I dont think this behavior is entirely wrong.
IMO it should be re-recognizing it every time the license file is changed, but only showing a "click here to learn more about different licenses" would also be much better
Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn’t “this is the license file you have open” it’s “the repo is licensed under this” so it’s correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say “this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans”
I didn't even realize that! Their official distribution page links to the "secondary branch", which is actually an outdated tag branch. The license was changed a month ago.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.