They do this at my local hospital at least. There is a plethora of colours for different staff roles. I understand this is not consistent across the whole NHS but in general the principle is mostly followed. eg, see
Oh, interesting. The few hospitals I've been familiar with through my wife's working there have all been single colour (or slightly different shades with different ages of stock!).
I don't think there's a rule about it though, it's just what they stock & launder. I don't think they're mandatory for doctors at all – my understanding is they pushed to be allowed to wear them during the pandemic, at least at the hospital she was at at the time, and it just stuck, 'nobody' wanted to go back to 'professional clothes' and washing them at home, and it'd be hard to enforce once you've dropped it I imagine.
(So what they'll do in practice, no pun intended, when the trust moves to this system I have no idea... Keep using the old ones washing them at home? Buy Figs etc.? Stop wearing scrubs?)
Not to take from the thrust your comment but just so you know, bumblebees and honeybees are not the same species.. Bumblebee nests are somewhat different than hives, and the way in which they develop is different also.
Also, looking at Russian track record specifically, is Georgia, which was militarily defeated in 2008, part of Russia? Did they formally annex Abkhazia or Transnistria? Does Lukashenko report to Putin?
Just that tiny image on his blog was enough for me to go "oh yeah, I used his diagram to explain this type of git workflow to colleagues a decade ago". Someone should have spotted that right away.
I would hope that the person who reviews their training on gitflow, knows something about gitflow. And if you know something about gitflow, it's not that strange to expect to recognise the most iconic gitflow diagram.
But even if you don't recognise the original, at least you should be able to tell that the generated copy is bullshit.
Again, I don't think this was reviewed. It was an assignment to a vendor 'write document and I'll hit publish'. There's a great chance the MSFT document _owner_ has no experience in the relevant area.
Actually, as a British over-55-under-70 myself I would support this. I've always thought that drivers should have to take a test every ~10 years in any case.
The main problem I see with over-70s renewing their licence currently is that they have to self-certify that they are safe to drive. Many are reaching a position in which they rely on the car more and more because walking and going on the bus is harder when your agility, cognition and eyesight diminishes. Of course, they will self-certify that they are safe, that is perfectly understandable from their perspective. It needs to be independent.
I find the licence to be overpriced already (I have one). I also have a bus pass, and find the buses barely fit for purpose outside the cities. (I am currently waiting for a service just now, which is once an hour on a sunday during the day and less on the way back in the evening.)
The NHS may fund free eye tests but they do not fund free glasses. Or free licences.
As I have said elsewhere, I do not find British public transport safe or reliable. On another note, I have sensory issues, so listening to some t*sser going through five second TikTok videos, playing crap music or yapping very loudly on the phone is extremely unpleasant for me. They don't like it if you ask them to be quieter either.
I'd say yes. I have a book by Lauren Slater, called 'Opening Skinners Box' in which she researched many psychological experiments of the past, and subjected herself to similar conditions where she could, in an effort to understand better.
The chapter on 'Thud' ended with her visiting a psychiatric hospital of good reputation with an emergency room, she basically said the same things as the researchers in the paper. She was given some anti-psychotics and sent away.
> She was given some anti-psychotics and sent away
But that confirms the main point of the experiment, which was that people who didn't need psychiatric treatment were given it anyway.
It's only of secondary importance that the prescribed treatment changed from hospitalization in 1973 to drugs by 2004. The primary point is that there was no objective way to determine who genuinely needed treatment. She didn't, but was diagnosed anyway.
This objection is so obvious that she must have addressed it in the book. Do you remember if she did?
> HERE’S WHAT’S DIFFERENT: I was not admitted. This is a very significant difference. No one even thought about admitting me. I was mislabeled but not locked up. Here’s another thing that’s different: every single medical professional was nice to me. Rosenhan and his confederates felt diminished by their diagnoses; I, for whatever reason, was treated with palpable kindness.
Seems she would disagree with your assessment that being prescribed some likely-harmless pills is the same as losing your freedom.
There's also a section earlier where she presents an argument the actual finding of the study is that mental healthcare is not set up to handle adversarial or dishonest patients, which is still a problem and a tough one to solve.
Sorry for replying so late, I only just checked the thread.
"I was mislabeled but not locked up" is misleading because hospitalization was phased out decades ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation). The reason she didn't get "locked up" is because treatments changed, not because she was assessed correctly (she was not). Psychotic patients don't get "locked up" by default anymore—they get medicated, which is what happened in her case as well.
It's a red herring to emphasize an obsolete practice that was phased out long ago. "I was mislabeled but not locked up" says no more than "I was mislabeled but not put in an insulin coma". A more accurate statement would be "I was misdiagnosed and treated for mental illness". Written that way, it's clearer that this is not a refutation of Rosenhan at all, and looks more like a replication.
I don't know if the book is actually this misleading because I haven't read it. I'm just making an out-of-context response to the out-of-context bits of information I've gleaned here.
Mental healthcare does care about dishonest patients in some cases, mainly where it's an avenue for drug-seeking. But no-one's trying to get ahold of anti-psychotics for recreational purposes.
If you are sitting in a waymo vehicle, and somebody cuts you off - do you even notice? They don't have them round here but my idea is that the vehicle itself is doing all the work, you can just continue reading your book, chat or get on something else with little awareness of the actual journey. Does the waymo curse and shake its little fist to alert you it was cut off?
Ok so the plane is pretty much toast, though perhaps only the bottom of the fuselage as not sure if the wingtips touched the ground.
I'm wondering about the runway at this point, does that damage the runway significantly? It seems that a runway out of order would be a massive problem..
It probably did damage the runway a bit, but given that these ancient planes are no longer in production, the cost to repair whatever damage was done to the plane (looks pretty extensive, from the video) is likely much more expensive than whatever work is needed to fix the runway.
reply