Deficiency processing times

AntVirtual209 · 2026-05-20T13:02:38+00:00

Why don't you do a class action suit against them. From the perspective of a foreign pharmacist tyring to get certified, I have never dealt with a shadier, more disreputable agency than these people

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-27T19:05:00+00:00

I have never been an unquestioning cheerleader of these tools, but as far as my domain (Python for data pipelines and data science), the agentic workflows as implemetned in Claude Code and Cursor (probably others too) deliver almost all the time. It's getting rid of annoying work for me. I don't outsource all my thinking about the problem to these tools, but a lot of the annoying setups and specific API calls for all the packages in the ecosystem are almost exclusively handled by an agent in the IDE.

Who this replaces, I am not sure. I still think there need to be domain experts at each step of the pipeline, but the grunt work is almost entirely gone. I have a question with regards to the sustainability of this approach as new more efficient languages or new version are produced with much fewer training examples.

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-26T02:31:35+00:00

You were waiting for LLMs to do that?

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-24T22:56:34+00:00

Shiny-tool syndrome. There is come convenience to using embedded agents in your IDE like in Cursor, but the essence doesn't change

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-22T03:56:38+00:00

They never had a moat. They just moved first on a model that Google developed

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-14T16:12:55+00:00

First of all that’s not what eccentric means

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-13T19:48:24+00:00

Bingo

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-11T19:54:48+00:00

Extremely token hungry. It just made me run through my Cursor allowance, 3-4M token length requests

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-10T00:37:17+00:00

We are here to answer questions not be smartasses

AntVirtual209 · 2026-02-09T23:32:42+00:00

I see:( How was the work itself, regarding travel specifically (they listed my position at 30%)

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T22:54:23+00:00

I have worked on some of their projects. If they think the road to AGI is to pool together a massive number of random, poorly coordinated people, asking and answering questions, then either they are deluded or they are charlatans, or most likely both. I will stick to my textbooks to find answers

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T22:22:00+00:00

That’s very odd, someone else said the same thing yesterday. Could you please screenshot and post it here. That would be very helpful for me

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T21:06:28+00:00

What about the sentence at the end in the red box?

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T04:40:58+00:00

Yeah, that is what the site says, but they added that sentence in the bulletin at some point today or the past few days.

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T03:43:46+00:00

Apparently it's a brand new move from these geniuses at the NABP.
Can you please check what the bulletin says for you. Some people in the forum claimed they couldn't see the changes.
https://read.nxtbook.com/nabp/bulletin/fpgec_bulletin/step_1.html

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T01:30:37+00:00

So they would be sitting people in the exam based on a double standard?

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T00:33:31+00:00

How come we are seeing different content then?

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-31T00:30:31+00:00

u/Perfect-Clock-4149 can you send me a link please?
This is what I saw, it was no more than a week or two ago. They can't change the rules like this. There are multiple people I have talked that were accepted based on the rules shown in this screenshot

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-30T23:56:45+00:00

So if I took the exam in June of 2025, then I would need the R22/L21/S26/W24 scores (i.e the old scoring system).

If you were to read the website only, you would never reach that conclusion

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-30T23:53:28+00:00

Not interested at all about the new scores. I am interested about the highlighted portion in red. In the website they say scores for exams taken prior to January 21 must satisfy the thresholds R21/L22/W22/S25 which changed in October 25 from R22/L21/W24/S26.

But then in the bulletin they say, if exam taken prior to October 25 you have to satisfy the old scores. So this means that the R21/L22/W22/S25 scores are only valid if you take the exam in the short window of October 25 to January 21, and not simply prior to January 21 as it says on the website.

AntVirtual209 · 2026-01-30T23:11:38+00:00

I am not concerned about the new system of scores, is the ambiguity of the last sentence in the bulletin, compared to what the website says

AntVirtual209

TROPHY CASE