> it was just a variation in their judgement rather than a "we want to make money" type of scam.

Sure. I mean, dentists, unlike every other human, are not interested in making money, and would not abuse their position to give incorrect information that is in their benefit. /s

I had a dentist who preferred to see patients each 12 months for a relatively cheap routine check while avoiding doing anything if something was discovered during the check if that could wait. She fixed a minor cavity for me like after 4 years of checks. At some point she stopped accepting new patients because she had too many of them.

That's why I mentioned there was no difference seen with public health dentists. They are on a salary paid by the government and have a huge backlog, they have zero incentive to do more treatment than absolutely necessary.

Plenty of dentists that are on a fixed salary and wouldn't profit from it.

Parent already covered dentists who are not making money by the widely differing diagoses, because they work for a set salary for non-for-profit government health coverage, and yet still do that.

Even if that is the case (which others here have argued against), maximizing the income is not the same as maximizing cavity fillings.

In public healthcare medicines often make more money by treating more people, treating people longer actually makes them less money.

Can it really be acceptable that you are denied a living, for taking a genuine and reasonable moral position, because this is not acceptable to the government?

Coming to a country near you soon!

Climate changeis a reason to produce more not less. Ac isnt energy free

"produce" what exactly?

Literally everything but specifically air conditioners and electricity to run the air conditioners. Better if production is skewed to productive equipment rather than consumer end goods but it isnt strictly necessary. More productive capacity will always do better against change than less.

Will ac fix all the other things that come along? Like, extreme weather, droughts, flooding?

Yes, of course

Isn't stalking already illegal? Isn't this stalking? Or facilitating it, at least.

> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.

Sure. Its a just a shame people don't get a chance to talk too. I don't want a de-anonymised internet, for example, even if most businesses and the governance system think this is a 'good'.

> I'm surprised that (particularly non-US) regulators are not investigating them yet.

Because corporate managed phones are required for all the id crap governance franchises intend to foist on people.

In many places in Europe, older cars are not viable on account of emissions legislation. So, if you want to drive with an older car, you will have to pay a pretty large daily fee to do so. This is done in the name of pollution.

I would expect this legislative approach will be rolled everywhere.

I hate it, fwiw.

Not to mention, in most worlds, an electric car is going to be much cheaper to drive in the long run.

You just need to splash 20-whatever thousands to upgrade first. Its only money!

I will pay the fee instead of purchase a new car.

Its about 16.54 dollars every day you use your car in London.

https://government.london/services/ulez/

> Drive a non-compliant vehicle anywhere in London and you pay £12.50 for the day. Check your vehicle first — most newer cars pay nothing — then pay for the day or set up Auto Pay with TfL.

Sometimes it costs money to stick to your principles.

I get it - I'm just telling you what the cost in London is. Most people can't stick paying that amount just to drive their old car. Most people upgrade.

For me, this is another example of how corporations + governments work together to artificially create new markets with the consumer picking up the tab. In this case, car maker sales are boosted by legislation that punishes ownership of perfectly viable cars.

> Put a human in the loop and you just end up bottlenecking it

Ok then. Howsabout 3 humans? This would sort out the job losses too!

PS - this is a joke, but perhaps this is where things really will go. Has any technology ever actually yielded less "work"?

While using one's brain has never been 'the thing', it's positively unfashionable nowadays.

Horrible people