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.
Send multiple all user emails stating which end to put in the water. People still call the Help Desk or email you directly, your response is forwarding them the email, they complained that it’s not convenient or they get too many emails or don’t have time for emails.
You send documentation and place it on the portal. they complain it’s overly complicated, so you add screenshots with which end to put in the water. They still mess it up and complain about lack of instruction.
You schedule 30 minute courses, 3 times a day, every day of the week and spam out notifications to sign up. You get a total of 12 people the first 2 weeks, most of which figured it out on their own at some point but thought it was mandatory, or that there were high level secrets or Tips n Tricks you were gonna teach. When the education period ends, you still get people complaining that the times weren’t convenient enough for them because they work 2nd shift or weekends.
You schedule another 2 weeks of classes, after hours and on weekends. 2 people show up, but not the ones who bitched about it.
Despite everything, your boss still sings you on your review didn’t meet the needs of the organization with this rollout
Oof, I’m not in IT thank goodness, but I still feel this in my bones. I’ve had to write plenty of instructions for in-house trained users though, and it seemed just as bad. I can’t imagine what it’s like with real randos.
I’ve definitely seen some of these “please let us help you” getting sent around. And even in completely different types of organizations I’ve seen time and time again how the obnoxious entitled complainers don’t even show up.
They’re just serial complainers. Even if you walk around their department with a laptop to give them 5 minute instruction, no matter when you do it it’s always inconvenient to them. Some people exist solely to complain about shit
Yeah, unfortunately a huge chunk of the population is so negative that complaining about the world is pretty much how they interact with it. That and they define themselves by the things they don’t like.
You bitwise OR into the higher end bits the user id, in which you have already encoded the user’s gender. (For which you have a util method to extract. )
Don’t be silly; it’s obvious that there are different error messages for each gender expression. Error logs need to be detailed and specific in order to be useful.
This isn’t the evolution of C at all. It’s all just one language and you’re simply stuck in a lower dimension with a dimensionally compatible cross-section.
It’s your unique tracking code. If I click that link, Google will know you shared a video with me. They want to know who’s talking to who on other platforms.
Besides being relatively new, it seems to have basic things you need.
It’s been baseline since March of 2017.
I’ve never run into a case where I’ve needed to use axios in almost a decade of being a professional web developer. It’s mostly been an annoyance whenever I’ve come into contact with it, and replacing it with fetch() calls would’ve solved those issues.
Besides that, axios is a dependency for functionality that is already built into the web platform.
Unless you need to account for compat (DoD, gov’t contractors), easy cancellation (e.g. polling is necessary vs pubsub), upload progress (e.g. progress bars for large uploads), or better errors (axios throws on server errors, fetch, by default, replies OK).
It’s also nicer to configure - though I suppose you can just build classes for each fetch client on the frontend. Middleware - in particular, is easier in axios for advanced auth flows.
Native fetch is great, but saying no one uses one of the most installed (per weekly) packages on npm is just outright wrong.
Then again, this is a weird hill for me to die on so I’ll leave it. The confidence of your statement was just…strange. And for some reason I was compelled to comment.
Those are all just a compilation of special cases…
I didn’t say nobody uses it. There are so many projects using it, and I think no professional should be defaulting to including axios in their project unless absolutely necessary.
I feel like mobile is fair. Things open new tabs automatically a lot more. But I have seen some scary posts asking how to organize tens of thousands of tabs. There’s a neat part to that.
I actually use the feature that groups them when inactive long enough. If I save a tab on my computer I’m never going back to it but, for some reason, I do eventually get to it on my phone before closing. Usually news articles in reader mode.
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.