Part of the problem with this is the horrible business practices and policies in place. In a way, it is urgent that you get back to your health insurance rep or your car insurance rep or whatever private business that's selling you a government mandated service. That phone rep knows that you only have 15 more days to finish your insurance claim, or you've gone past the deadline. Then when you call back, the rep can't do anything. Terrible business policy doesn't allow them to. Something like this happened to me.
I had an issue once with a claim. It was an ongoing ordeal with lots of small meetings and documentation. It was eventually denied. However, I had a rebuttal window. Unfortunately for me, it came during a stressful period of work. I made the initial call to my rep. No call back. I was buried under work, and the 5 day rebuttal window (how absurdly short) blew by without me realizing it. Turns out the rep was on vacation, and after my case was closed, there was no reason for them to return my call.
These issues are never a matter of urgency that should be dealt with in that instance. However, don't let your window of opportunity close due to an adversarial business policy.
I'm not a lawyer, but: if you missed the dispute window because they didn't call you back, I'm not sure you missed the dispute window? In matters of law the statute of limitations often 'tolls', or pauses, once a dispute begins.
out of curiosity which insurer did this + in which state?
Focus on the bottleneck. There is a finite amount of time. Increase it to allow more participants.
There's also putting restrictions on the input. Have a maximum song length.
Otherwise, require additional constraints before queueing like making it computationally expensive or having a priority system based on criteria. Charge a cover (with increasing costs) or have a membership club that gives more/better access.
They're not mutually exclusive. I would like a more progressive tax system, better healthcare for everyone, better rights for workers, and better systemic treatment of minorities and non-binary people.
I don't really see us doing both though. We keep yelling about identity politics and one side keeps evolving to the point where 50% of the people are basically on the same page about an ever increasing list of concerns around minorities, while the other side is ever more entrenched in opposition -- meanwhile the social policies that 80% of the people would agree upon (like if you poll about universal healthcare by describing it instead of naming it) are simply not happening.
This is unlikely to be an accident since the corporations who have bought most of the politicians in the country don't mind more minority CEOs but they're very threatened by economic policies that would be overwhelmingly popular if an imaginary labor-oriented political party were able to punch through the corporate propaganda.
This is an excellent point that I hadn't properly considered before. The term "non-binary" invokes a strawman that it proceeds to tear down. The notion is if you don't accept the idea that gender is an arbitrary social construction, you must therefore believe people fall into rigid, simplistic categories.
I have plenty of time in both Halo Infinite and Splitgate. Even if you take away the portals, Splitgate doesn't play like Halo Infinite at all. They look and sound similar, but they play and feel very different.
> The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed
Question about this specifically. Was it ever revealed if that order was to get people indoors to a reinforced building that happened to collapse? I remember SMS screenshots of a delivery driver who was killed, and to have sent him on the road would have been a death sentence.
That’s an exceedingly charitable stance to take, because the actual proper thing to do would have been to send people home before the storm hit, and possibly give them the option of sheltering in the warehouse if they needed to (assuming it was actually reinforced).
I can see why you'd say that. It's not charitable thinking. I'm thinking it's part of a standard inclement weather plan. Everyone works as usual. If there's a tornado watch, employees don't come in to keep them from being caught in a tornado. Hold employees in approved safety area under a tornado warning (e.g. reinforced building, not open warehouse), because sending them home is a clear danger.
Good mentors nudge and maybe push; they never shove.
The best mentor I ever had helped me orient myself when I had no idea what I wanted to do. My answers were always, "I'm not sure. As long as I'm actively developing, I'll likely be fine." This wasn't quite true. Working on feature sets that didn't make sense with the code's architecture only to be thrown out 3 months later was rough.
She was the one that encouraged me to work on skills during work hours. No employer is going to miss 1/40 hours when it's used for professional development that directly benefits them. She encouraged me to stick with learning new things when I was ready to phone it in. AWS certs aren't hard to pass, but I probably wouldn't have taken the test without her push. I would have never dipped my toe into management. I found that management wasn't for me, but it was a better experience than resting on my laurels for a year.
A good mentor is like a good friend checking in on you from time to time, but the relationship is professional. Everything pertains to your professional goals (or in support of) from a place of wanting the mentee to succeed.
Web desktops usually aren't meant to be a true replacement of an actual OS. They tend to be long-tailed exercises that marry web development and desktop development.
Along with what the sibling said, I'm not interested in tricks and puzzles, but I am interested in how people take in and handle new information. I'm not going to pretend like my job is bleeding edge or remotely novel tech. I do CRUD with SQL.
It's impossible for anyone to be an expert in every application that my team handles. The key for us is that we try to keep our applications relatively simple with how data moves from point to point. Orienting yourself with new environments and applications significantly increases productivity here. It's always good to have people who can recognize and apply logic to patterns, but knowing how to ask questions is important. It isn't about the "gotchas". It's about what happens after the person is stuck. We try to make sure our applicants can make some assumption or ask clarifying questions about ambiguous portions.
> Google Search has gone so far downhill. I'm not sure what they're optimising for. Long-term irrelevance, it seems.
I assume they're optimizing for the most common denominator: standard, non-power users. Early search didn't return great results for human-like questions such as What are the wavelengths of the colors on the visible spectrum? The result might be within the first two pages, but that query had too many irrelevant search terms. A better query would have been wavelengths color visible spectrum. That query only has the necessary key terms. Sometimes queries required the user to know search operators (e.g. exact match, date range, synonyms) just to get relevant results.
The average person probably didn't know that early searches gave better results when constructed in the second way. Google changed search to adapt to how normal people search. Now the human-like query will return good results. Combine that with locales, search history, and personal interests, even the most basic user can get worthwhile results from asking Google question. The cost is that power users who understand operators and the power of key terms get less relevant results but likely still correct.
I'm skeptical that it's all that much better for any group of user. I search for normal things all of the time and it doesn't do a good job at returning relevant results for things like businesses, recent movies / TV shows, etc. and natural language syntax doesn't make the results less bad.
What it looks suspiciously like to me is a lack of an effective feedback loop for user frustration — if it takes a number of queries to get correct results or someone doesn't stop using Google search entirely, this would be easy to confuse with improved engagement and I'd especially believe that managers whose job it is to get a number to go up are not in a hurry to question whether that growth is meaningful.
If Google actually used its search history, it would see I was a sw eng power user, and return the types of results that users like me want to see.
Then again, I have been using Google Maps for 16 years and it still cannot show me distances in km rather than miles. A boolean setting ffs that I've had to manually switch probably a thousand times.
If billions of dollars of AI R&D can't even figure that out...
I had an issue once with a claim. It was an ongoing ordeal with lots of small meetings and documentation. It was eventually denied. However, I had a rebuttal window. Unfortunately for me, it came during a stressful period of work. I made the initial call to my rep. No call back. I was buried under work, and the 5 day rebuttal window (how absurdly short) blew by without me realizing it. Turns out the rep was on vacation, and after my case was closed, there was no reason for them to return my call.
These issues are never a matter of urgency that should be dealt with in that instance. However, don't let your window of opportunity close due to an adversarial business policy.