Things you have recently learnt

12357…85

Comments

  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,973
    edited September 2019
    darkhairedlord wrote:
    Someone may have posted this but the use of "waster" as a useless person when the correct term is waister.

    So I looked it up...

    Noun. waister (plural waisters) (nautical) A seaman stationed in the waist of a warship. "The largest division of a ship's company, and the most ignoble, was that of the waisters, the men stationed in the waist, the men " without art or judgment," who hauled aft the fore and main sheets, and kept the decks white."

    Interesting. Thanks for that. :D


    EDIT to say I was looking this up and writing (and generally taking my time) whilst Brian posted his rebuttal. Never mind, it's still interesting.


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    The admiral's daughter really did have a naval full of discharged seamen.
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    The thing about the fuel gauge and the little arrow that tells you what side the filler cap is on...I hired a car in Cape Town, a VW Polo, and it DID NOT have the arrow. SHOCK HORROR.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • essex-commuter
    essex-commuter Posts: 2,188
    elbowloh wrote:
    The thing about the fuel gauge and the little arrow that tells you what side the filler cap is on...I hired a car in Cape Town, a VW Polo, and it DID NOT have the arrow. SHOCK HORROR.

    Cape Town...someone probably nicked it.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    That NATO is a lot less binding than I thought.
    _
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Hire cars in Cape Town may have bits missing.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    hopkinb wrote:
    essex-commuter wrote:
    Allegedly the numbers or markers on toasters are minutes, not 'browness'.

    :shock: :shock: :shock:

    This is dynamite stuff. Can it be though? I have it somewhere between 4 and 5 on a 10 point scale. The missus will use a 7 for crumpets. Does anyone use 10?

    Late to the party sorry but - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_PK5pXmIY :wink:
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Glass pill boxes? Used to get plastic ones but glass ones could be recycled. Deposit paid at pharmacist?

    Would seem sensible to go back to the refillable bottles - fine for most things - but what if it's pills for something contagious? would you want to have the bottle after someone else has?

    Problem with the pre-packed repeats is that although you know you're getting the right amount of the right drug, you don't know if that person is getting that medication for the first time or hundredth time - and what if the brand has changed - the active ingredients may stay the same, but the leaflet may differ slightly?

    But yes - I've been on the same medication for >25 years and I don't think I've read the enclosed leaflet more than twice. It used to come in a bottle, but changed to a blister pack. I used to get 3 months worth at a time, I now get 1 months worth - which just means I have to visit the pharmacy 12 times a year instead of 4 ...
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Sterilization and relabelling standardised pill bottle design.

    No issue with most contagious diseases and the ones that sterilization fails on would the patient be walking around in public with it or in a quarantine ward with drugs supplied on trays in paper containers by nurses with PPE on?

    Labelling is simply paper stickers anyway. They come off easily.

    That leaves the paper leaflet found in boxes, that might be needed separately or a more novel delivery method for the information it holds.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Sterilization and relabelling standardised pill bottle design.

    No issue with most contagious diseases and the ones that sterilization fails on would the patient be walking around in public with it or in a quarantine ward with drugs supplied on trays in paper containers by nurses with PPE on?

    Labelling is simply paper stickers anyway. They come off easily.

    That leaves the paper leaflet found in boxes, that might be needed separately or a more novel delivery method for the information it holds.

    The major issues with reusable bottles is that they are not tamperproof and much more vulnerable to human error - oops, I put 200mg instead of 50mg tablets in the bottle.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    rjsterry wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Sterilization and relabelling standardised pill bottle design.

    No issue with most contagious diseases and the ones that sterilization fails on would the patient be walking around in public with it or in a quarantine ward with drugs supplied on trays in paper containers by nurses with PPE on?

    Labelling is simply paper stickers anyway. They come off easily.

    That leaves the paper leaflet found in boxes, that might be needed separately or a more novel delivery method for the information it holds.

    The major issues with reusable bottles is that they are not tamperproof and much more vulnerable to human error - oops, I put 200mg instead of 50mg tablets in the bottle.
    It certainly moves the point of error from the pharmacy source to the pharmacist - but surely, not insurmountable? the one you cited - just weigh the bottle after packing it - it should be the right weight, within a small margin of error - the one that would be more tricky is putting the wrong medicine in.
    Another thing to note is the prepacked boxes have braille on them - no idea what it says, but I guess it's there for those who can't see ... harder to replicate on a reusable bottle....

    I should think they could do away with leafletting every package - just have some available for those who want them - and QR code for those of us with smart phones ...
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    I'm mid 40s but I remember seeing pharmacist pouring pills into a plastic pill bottle using a plastic poured. It had two raised edges against which pills went and marks indicated quantity when pills packed neatly against your edges. I think there were different pourers present so I guess standard markings for standard size pills.

    Replace the plastic with something else and that system could work for our modern age. Could it also be cheaper buying as loose pills?
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    I'm mid 40s but I remember seeing pharmacist pouring pills into a plastic pill bottle using a plastic poured. It had two raised edges against which pills went and marks indicated quantity when pills packed neatly against your edges. I think there were different pourers present so I guess standard markings for standard size pills.

    Replace the plastic with something else and that system could work for our modern age. Could it also be cheaper buying as loose pills?
    Yes - similar experience

    Plastic isn't all bad - if it's reusable then it's better. (Clingfilm isn't - it's practically single use .. stop using it!)
    Cheaper to buy loose pills? Possibly, but then you've got the time taken to measure out the prescription - so money saved in the raw product is offset by the increase in staff time cost. Much easier/quicker to pick up a pre-packed box.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Slowbike wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Sterilization and relabelling standardised pill bottle design.

    No issue with most contagious diseases and the ones that sterilization fails on would the patient be walking around in public with it or in a quarantine ward with drugs supplied on trays in paper containers by nurses with PPE on?

    Labelling is simply paper stickers anyway. They come off easily.

    That leaves the paper leaflet found in boxes, that might be needed separately or a more novel delivery method for the information it holds.

    The major issues with reusable bottles is that they are not tamperproof and much more vulnerable to human error - oops, I put 200mg instead of 50mg tablets in the bottle.
    It certainly moves the point of error from the pharmacy source to the pharmacist - but surely, not insurmountable? the one you cited - just weigh the bottle after packing it - it should be the right weight, within a small margin of error - the one that would be more tricky is putting the wrong medicine in.
    Another thing to note is the prepacked boxes have braille on them - no idea what it says, but I guess it's there for those who can't see ... harder to replicate on a reusable bottle....

    I should think they could do away with leafletting every package - just have some available for those who want them - and QR code for those of us with smart phones ...

    The difference in actual tablet weight for varying doses of the active ingredient is not significant. Even in my example it would add 1 or 2 grams to the overall contents. If the doses are in micrograms, that's 6 orders of magnitude different from the weight of the contents of one bottle. Are pharmacy scales accurate to 7 decimal places?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Then again one of my local pharmacists supply one drug I get in plain boxes and they still have up count out blister packs to fill the prescription. Besides with those pourer/counters it's hardly onerous to count loose pills.

    Autocorrect keeps correcting pills as piles. You really don't want to consider loose piles. Pills go to piles, piles go to pillows, pillows goes to pipes. New phone needs to learn my swiping style for typing messages.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    All tablets have markings. They define the drug and amount in the tablet I believe. Some extra checking entailed but getting it wrong is still negligence. There's so many failure modes already that pharmacists already check prescriptions such that those extra checks might not amount to much extra cost in time or money.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    rjsterry wrote:
    Are pharmacy scales accurate to 7 decimal places?
    Probably not - they had the pill pourer (possibly still do) - but it could be another check ...

    I'm just trying to think of the reasons for NOT doing loose pills ...
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    All tablets have markings. They define the drug and amount in the tablet I believe. Some extra checking entailed but getting it wrong is still negligence. There's so many failure modes already that pharmacists already check prescriptions such that those extra checks might not amount to much extra cost in time or money.

    Yes - you are right - how do you mitigate against staff negligence? Make it easier to identify the pills and dose - push it up the chain to the supplier - most of the time medication is prescribed in set doses - get it supplied in those multiples and you reduce the risk of YOU getting it wrong.
    Anyone a pharmacist? Would you want to measure out prescriptions into a reusable container?

    Perhaps we should just get the suppliers to issue in the bottles by default - then when you go and get your repeat you simply take your container back to be sent back to the supplier .... which just increases the transport requirements.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Slowbike wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Are pharmacy scales accurate to 7 decimal places?
    Probably not - they had the pill pourer (possibly still do) - but it could be another check ...

    I'm just trying to think of the reasons for NOT doing loose pills ...

    As I mentioned, tamper proofing.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Wheelspinner
    Wheelspinner Posts: 6,692
    Not sure what your regulations are over there, but here it is a standard pharmacy practice to "repack" pills for people who have multiple scripts to take each day into daily "buckets". They supply pill boxes marked "Sun, Mon, Tue.. " etc and if someone has 4 different tablets to take each day, the pharmacist does this for them.

    May be a service restricted to the elderly, or perhaps otherwise impaired, not sure, but it's certainly a standard practice.
    Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Bottles not tamper proof? Used to have them. Also child safe which was more likely to cause adults problems opening them.

    Cough medicines come with tamper proof features. Boxes of tablets only have your foil and some have a circular tape on the openings. Can't be beyond us to work one out for reusable pill bottles.

    Put the counting out back to drug makers? Can easily be done with pill bottles.

    This is minor compared to drinks bottles. If we do anything first it should be to ban plastic bottles and set up refund system to get bottles straight back into use without having to recover them like now. As in reuse not recycle.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Not sure what your regulations are over there, but here it is a standard pharmacy practice to "repack" pills for people who have multiple scripts to take each day into daily "buckets". They supply pill boxes marked "Sun, Mon, Tue.. " etc and if someone has 4 different tablets to take each day, the pharmacist does this for them.

    May be a service restricted to the elderly, or perhaps otherwise impaired, not sure, but it's certainly a standard practice.

    Fairly standard over here too.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    yeah - my grandma, who has dementia, has them split by day and AM/PM as well. although my dad had to relabel them as she doesn't know what AM or PM means anymore for so they now say morning and evening - getting old doesn't sound much fun
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    CTRL+Y is redo (much like ctrl+z is undo - just the opposite!)
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Windows button + L is lock your PC. It locks it quickly so is a very good safety net if you go on websites that are not safe for work and your boss approaches suddenly.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Then they will wonder why you are sat infront of a blank screen - or been idle for so long.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Windows button + L is lock your PC. It locks it quickly so is a very good safety net if you go on websites that are not safe for work and your boss approaches suddenly.

    windows key + m minimises all open windows which could be less suspicious if you want an alternative
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    not the picture in picture video I am watching, sadly.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Oh I just get my phone and make to walk away. I've got a job i have to go to the shop floor from time to time. Locking the screen looks perfectly natural activity if followed with a getting up action.

    I do use the minimise option but the lock works better for me.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Windows button + L is lock your PC. It locks it quickly so is a very good safety net if you go on websites that are not safe for work and your boss approaches suddenly.

    before checking that could you confirm what unlock is?

Categories