Two-factor login keeps coming up in wrong places. A short note on where it belongs.
It is one of those things that is obvious once written down and invisible before.
Nothing here is a rule for its own sake, which is why the odd ones have a paragraph attached.
The search box handles most of this and almost nobody uses it.
The short version is that the rule exists because of a specific pattern of posts.
Curious what the moderators think.
Followed, this answered three questions I had.
Followed, this answered three questions I had.
Ten percent cuts, of the current dose not the original. That is the arithmetic that keeps it survivable.
Same shape here, different drug. The thing that helped was documenting the refusal rather than re-arguing it. They refer rather than write.
Half these threads would be unnecessary with a functioning search box.
Did not know half of this. Thanks. Not on two-factor login but the pattern is familiar.
Same here.
Eight months in on two-factor login and it lines up.
Reference ranges differ between labs, so comparing two reports is close to meaningless.
Function over score.
Enteric coatings should not be crushed. The pellets are the delivery mechanism.
Ten percent cuts. Slower is faster.
Print the page.
Print the page. Currently on two-factor login myself.
Function over score.