The bar for things happening in the world isn't "do we really need this", it never has been. It's more like "does anyone have any incentive to do this", and with AI plenty of companies and people do.
The logic is flimsy - having the newer equipment also means looking for reasons to use it to justify the cost so these dentists will often recommend expensive onlays instead of fillings for example.
Or your logic is flimsy. Equipment, as far as I can tell, is mostly bought once and then mortgaged over the lifetime of the practice, so they are presumably paying the same regardless. Newer dentists just have newer, and nicer, equipment. I go to a newer dentist and have never been recommended onlays. It's like any profession, some people are honest and some aren't.
You make a good point! I wish it were easier to find dentists based on machine, for one that has done the research. Now this gets to dental website quality. Also makes me want to ask this community what, if anything, can be gathered about the quality of the dentist based on his website.
Similar experience, not with the office but with the dentist himself - he came across as way too artificially nice, more like a salesman than a dentist, then recommended 4 treatments, 2 of which were unnecessary according to the second opinion I got.
There's attempts but you can only do so much in hundreds/thousands of dimensions. Most of the time the visualization doesn't really provide anything meaningful.
Exactly, I'm surprised at the people applauding this behavior. It's barely an evolution in fooling the ATS and speaks more about the character of the applicant than his skills. While I agree that the current hiring landscape is crazy if we condone this behavior what would be the next step? Doxxing the interviewer(s) and telling them the names of his family members and where they live during the interview?
A feature of what? Surely Jobs didn't expect a feature of Windows, OSX, Android, Linux, and ChromeOS to all seamlessly interact with one another.
I don't doubt that Jobs might have seen Dropbox as a feature that Apple could have implemented across the Apple ecosystem, but that's a pretty limited view of where the value of Dropbox lies.
Why is iCloud different? For the Apple ecosystem, interaction with Mac/iPhone/AppleTV is all that matters. Which is why I don't subscribe to the garden. But it's a reasonable perspective of Jobs that doesn't conflict with this statement.
But it's a reasonable perspective of Jobs that doesn't conflict with this statement.
That's what I'm saying. From Jobs' perspective it was a feature for Apple, because Jobs believed only Apple devices matter. For everyone else that's a pretty limited view of the world that doesn't really apply, and measuring Dropbox (as a company) by that standard is nonsensical. It should be obvious that there's value in sharing files more widely than just within one ecosystem.
It's a product that I was willing to pay for (until I required native E2E encryption). _iCloud Drive_ is a feature, mostly — aside from the fact that you still have to pay for it to be useful, so kind of still a product.
Steve Jobs was wrong about many things, and this was one of them.
I'm responding to the person who quoted Steve Jobs by saying Dropbox isn't a product, it's a feature. 17 years is a really long time on the web, and Dropbox has not only been a product, but a successful publicly traded company for most of that time, during which so many other "real" products have risen and fallen. The fact that you subscribe to Google One doesn't tell me anything, except that Google created a product to compete with Dropbox, which is also a product.
I don't agree that it's idealistic because it's only directional - it tells you what to move towards, it doesn't give you any idealistic target or criteria for any of the things it lists. Which seems like a good thing.
If it is, so is most other knowledge work. In which case society is so screwed in the short-to-medium term that there’s no point in worrying about it since you can’t do anything to prevent or avoid it.
It’s like worrying about nuclear war - low probability of a negative outcome completely out of your control.
reply