If someone is literally dying in your duty of care because noone can access any patient records, that sounds tortuous to me. A bit like the Stanford prison experiment, but replace the guards with IT contractors, and the prisoners with surgeons, doctors, and nurses.

And the person responsible is not the guy without password, bit a coward who didn't push for 5x 9 SLA. Yes, this includes hard real life access time analysis. If failing to remember a silly password takes longer than k minutes, it should be a breach of contract. Likewise if total disruption due to password changes is too high. It's silly to implement a horde of govt rules while neglecting the basics.

Doctors, particularly trauma and tumor surgeons, have dying patients all the time.

Often there are additional treatments available but for resource constraints. Ordinary folk die of heart disease every day, but somehow Dick Cheney lives on with an artificial heart.

I know being a doctor can be quite a stressful job and requires a certain class of personality. But still it has gone with the territory of being a doctor since the beginning of civilization.

Well perhaps that is true, but having someone who is dieing because the surgery is failing is a bit different than someone who's dieing because you can't remember some login's passcode.

And of course then these delays compound over time and adversely affect the entire system.

Designing good software which meets government legalese constraints (which are guaranteeedly absurd in certain instances, in wording, and nature (while others will make perfect sense and still be just as hard to implement)) in extremely complex situations (health care systems with millions of users with an outstanding number of providers of different sizes, with different conditions, and medications, and the stringency of the privacy requirements).

That's tough.

It'll be really neat to see the progression of software through time. It'll be neat if what we see today is the Model T to the Tesla (X?) of tomorrow (+~110 Years).

"I sat through a 3 hour meeting today and it was pure torture."

"I skipped breakfast today. I'm starving."

If you are truly uncomfortable with these sentences then it's possible that you are either a bit overly sensitive, or else you have trouble differentiating between literal statements and common english expressions.

Hyperbole is a problem.

>Or am I just being a sensitive ninny-nanny?

At least a little.

When we describe mundane things as extreme "I'm _starving_ the slow service at this restaurant is torture" or extreme things as mundane "enhanced interrogation techniques" we lose a little bit of our ability to correctly communicate and even experience the world.

Being in awe should be a rare and wonderful state, but instead it's apt to describe a free sandwich as awesome.

The problem: lazy people with poor vocabulary (and education) and bad journalism and editorial work.

After reading the title, I too expected to find a peculiar story about a covert team made up of software developers and hospital bureaucrats kidnapping and torturing a brain surgeon (which would have been a fascinating article). Instead the "torture" here appears to be a complaint about password policies and paperwork...the word "torture" does seem to be overkill in this context.

> Or am I just being a sensitive ninny-nanny?

Yes. Especially if you have to ask. Either make the case and stand behind it, or don't mention it.

Yes. Introspection and Self-Evaluation are for the weak.

Oh please. This isn't introspection so much as asking a bunch of global strangers "Do I look fat in this outfit?".

Lol.