|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2023 15:48:25 GMT -5
Well, my last passport application was 2006, so I Googled to see if much had changed. There’s a long list of people able to counter-sign, including airline pilots, Warrant Officers, dentists and MPs. I always found it peculiar. I mean, the local greengrocer or butcher might have known me for years - decades - but they weren’t listed as eligible professions. Interestingly, the latest UK Gov. site says a doctor can’t sign it unless he knows you well and recognises your photo. Don’t all doctors know you well, if you’ve been a patient for years? I don’t know if there’s still a charge of £25, that might apply to 2006, making my post past tense. I have heard of some professions choosing to charge, although I suspect many would happily do it for free. EDIT: The complete list of professions who can counter-sign: www.gov.uk/countersigning-passport-applications/accepted-occupations-for-countersignatories
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 16, 2023 17:00:33 GMT -5
(...) Just out of interest, because it’s best never to presume, for those outside the UK, does your country require your passport application to be counter-signed by a professional such as a doctor, magistrate, etc? My doctor charges £25 to counter-sign a passport application! Speaking as someone who has applied for (numerous times) and holds both a US and Croatian passport: no. And that's the first time I've ever heard of such a requirement.
I think it might just be a UK thing, I just checked mine(also US) and there's nothing about needing someone to counter-sign it. I'd never even heard of the term before today.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2023 17:07:05 GMT -5
Happy MLK Jr. Day to all.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2023 7:28:57 GMT -5
Might not be around much the next couple of days. Last night while watching the game I started shivering uncontrollably and getting the aches. 101 Fever when I checked. Covid test was negative this morning, but it might be a touch of flu. I am about to take some flu meds and go to sleep for a good part of the rest of the day.
-M
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 17, 2023 8:45:14 GMT -5
Might not be around much the next couple of days. Last night while watching the game I started shivering uncontrollably and getting the aches. 101 Fever when I checked. Covid test was negative this morning, but it might be a touch of flu. I am about to take some flu meds and go to sleep for a good part of the rest of the day. -M Even the flu is no joke, take care man.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jan 17, 2023 9:25:26 GMT -5
Feel better, MRP. Rest up.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 17, 2023 14:19:19 GMT -5
Hope you can take it easy and recover quickly, @mrp.
You'll definitely have fewer days on the IL than Sale and Storey.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 18, 2023 14:36:21 GMT -5
Has there ever been a website update that actually made it more usable? Because if there has it's been so long ago I can't remember it.
Brought to you by Wikipedia updating their web-based page to look more like their execrable mobile pages. On the heels of IMDB making their site significantly less usable and Goodreads continuing attempts to destroy the usability of the site.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2023 14:50:13 GMT -5
Has there ever been a website update that actually made it more usable? Because if there has it's been so long ago I can't remember it. Brought to you by Wikipedia updating their web-based page to look more like their execrable mobile pages. On the heels of IMDB making their site significantly less usable and Goodreads continuing attempts to destroy the usability of the site. Just checked. I agree. I know we discussed IMDb once. I wanted to check out some specific credits for an actor called John Ringham, particularly 4 appearances he did in one show. It all used to be so clear, but I found it impenetrable, I had to find mention of him in the show, click on something, then scroll across looking at each credit within that show on an individual basis. Or something like that. I honestly wish they could poll their users before implementing these changes. A democratic vote? Well, yes, because whenever IMDb, social media or any number of sites update their looks, I see complaint after complaint. When IMDb changed, people I knew were complaining, as was I. When Twitter implements a cosmetic change, your timeline becomes one of “WTF, Twitter?” or “Give us the old layout back NOW!” So it just seems that the sites you mention, and many others, are so out of touch with what people actually want.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jan 18, 2023 14:50:37 GMT -5
Has there ever been a website update that actually made it more usable? Because if there has it's been so long ago I can't remember it. Brought to you by Wikipedia updating their web-based page to look more like their execrable mobile pages. On the heels of IMDB making their site significantly less usable and Goodreads continuing attempts to destroy the usability of the site. Oh, is that what's going on with Wikipedia? I thought it was due to some kind of local glitch. Anyway, I agree that it sucks, which is unfortunate, because I tend to use the site quite a bit (unlike IMDB and Goo Dreads).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 14:40:04 GMT -5
Bye, bye, Wikipedia and IMDb. There are alternatives and you led them to me.
I have donated to Wikipedia in the past (probably 2-3 times over 5-6 years, so certainly not a big donor). They’ll get no more money from me. A few people have commented on how the new layout sucks.
Like social media, Wikipedia and IMDb should embrace a motto: “Forever giving the people what they DON’T want…”
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2023 7:49:48 GMT -5
So, someone I spoke to last night tells me they are having to get used to where everything is on Wikipedia. I suppose she will, but it still doesn’t defend their crappy decision to change the layout.
Do these entities EVER do any sort of market research before they impose their crappy changes? Consensus in this world is often rare, but you can almost guarantee that when Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, IMDb and others do changes, there’s an almost universal backlash. You’d think that the people running these things would be tech folk with their fingers on the pulse.
For all its faults, McDonalds does seem to know what its customers want (even if the food is not recommended). Magazine publishers can be the same. But if there was an award for not having one’s finger on the pulse when it came to cosmetic changes, the likes of IMDb would win it.
Also, has Quora changed at all. Let’s say you put in a question such as “How many solders in a platoon?” There would be a time when you’d check that question out and the answers would be accessible at a quick glance, but when I checked Quora this morning, it seems they’ve crammed all the similar questions/similar answers on one page, forcing me to click on this and that to actually expand the page and get the answer that I actually want.
Absolutely useless and out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 22, 2023 8:32:05 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is about the Wikipedia changes. Instead of having to scroll up the page to access the content menu, you can now navigate the menu as a sidebar. It might take some getting used to, but it's a clear improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2023 8:46:25 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is about the Wikipedia changes. Instead of having to scroll up the page to access the content menu, you can now navigate the menu as a sidebar. It might take some getting used to, but it's a clear improvement. I don't think it's an improvement, it's modern web design UX/UI theory that I think is incorrect. The theory is that the old format made the sentences too wide to read and that we should have a better reading experience with narrower sentences. Couple that with a sidebar navigation, and there you go. The problem is that it effectively shrinks my entire reading space, I don't need the navigation element permanently consuming my entire layout. And the short width for the text feels like I'm reading everything on a smaller screen than my actual one. Instead of leveraging my aspect ratio fully, they have indeed made everything feel more mobile like which is not pleasant to read things on. There is so much wasted space, it truly is a poor update IMO. I used to work in web media advertisting and teach multimedia design as an adjunct college instructor, I've been disappointed with some of these modern trends.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2023 8:51:09 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is about the Wikipedia changes. Instead of having to scroll up the page to access the content menu, you can now navigate the menu as a sidebar. It might take some getting used to, but it's a clear improvement. I don't think it's an improvement, it's modern web design UX/UI theory that I think is incorrect. The theory is that the old format made the sentences too wide to read and that we should have a better reading experience with narrower sentences. Couple that with a sidebar navigation, and there you go. The problem is that it effectively shrinks my entire reading space, I don't need the navigation element permanently consuming my entire layout. And the short width for the text feels like I'm reading everything on a smaller screen than my actual one. Instead of leveraging my aspect ratio fully, they have indeed made everything feel more mobile like which is not pleasant to read things on. There is so much wasted space, it truly is a poor update IMO. I used to work in web media advertisting and teach multimedia design as an adjunct college instructor, I've been disappointed with some of these modern trends. This layman felt exactly the same, but lacked the technical terminology to post it. So, thank you!
|
|