Skip to main content

Monochromically inverse team

I noted a “team” of nurses today at RPRH who are quite distinctive. One is Mauritian and the other born here in Perth. Other than being RPRH nurses, both femmes, similar sizes and both with a good command of English, they have very few physical commonalities. Their skins are (wonderfully) different. The Perthite is blonde-ish-haired and blue-ish-eyed (basically light Caucasian), the Mauritian is dark-haired and large-brown-eyed (basically fine-boned African), and so on.

...but...

When they wander about doing nurselike routines, these two walk in stride, they wear a fundamentally similar expression, they react to the same sights and sounds in (to state it lightly) similar ways, they each start conversations based around the same points of interest, and so on.

An impressive basic observation is that despite the obvious commonalities of behaviour, dedication to good work, politeness, echo reactions and so on, they are each quite different people at heart, both working excellently and not as “mere” mutual clones.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Making conversation and smalltalk with patients and their families is something all new nurses are assesed on during their first year of training. :-)
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Thanks, Lindsay, that’s something which I (obviously, as a patient) have never been told by any staff, or ever seem in real, effective practice outside RPH or RPRH (anywhere in WA or NZ).
Leon RJ Brooks said…
M[ir][s]s Perth from the team seems to occasionally develop another (BOC more overlap, optically) Caucason team-mate instead.

To my delight, the resulting team has a similar and effective plurality of action. This combination is little faster, which undermines a little of the original smoothness-of-action but entails more eye-keeping motility (walking, looking, talking) in its place.

It was quite disconcerting on my first sight to see “half” of the team and then someone else that my blinky/worn/beaten little brain mis-identified as being “the same half” of the team in a different spot at the same time.

As is so for all else that I remember to this date, those worn neurons seem to have generally rattled around and organised the mono/chromatic novelty so that I can understand and appreciate either team in action without massive disorientation. This effect is occupying and reassuring, both for the internal autocorrection itself and for then clearly seeing the soothing check-on-check duality from both teams as they occur.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...