we moved to a rural area in 2005 with clean, but unfluoridated well water. had a son. brushes twice daily for 2 minutes a time like everyone else in the house.
he had an excessive amount of cavities and the dentist did not use any supplementation. This was painful and unnecessary for my son (we stopped using that dentist when it was clear this isn't 'normal').
i realize this is n=1. but apparently calgary [0] also realized this was having an opposite effect as well. (yes i realize this is slightly different than supplementation in the parent article but the supplementation would have saved my kid from unnecessary cavities.)
absolutely. but i think there's at least some evidence that lack of appropriate fluoridation is beneficial. certainly in my anecdotal example (ofc, i didn't grow up in this town and every town in the US has wildly different fluoride levels in the municipal water systems).
i agree with this esp. when the parent linked a wiki page that, if you go beyond the single photo on the page and read it, is completely counter to the comment.
i'm confused too, but ty parent for making me aware of vision zero.
this was the comment i was looking for! i remember those red pages and found them annoying on even legitimately purchased games (which is how copy protection has always been IME - makes it so legitimate purchasers of a game got annoyed and hence, got cracks for games to just not be as annoyed!)
are profits spiralling downward? are these businesses, overall, making less profit? because of remote workers?
or is it closer to the truth to say that no amount of profit - or asserting authority over workers - is ever enough and since companies are in a position of power to squeeze blood from a stone, they will?
Profits don't have to spiral for something to become clear it's not working.
Maybe it's as simple as "this used to take us 3 weeks but now it's taking 5"... or "we're shipping features but they have a lot more holes than before".
Collaboration is pretty hard remotely when you have to schedule discussions and everything else is asynchronous. Certain tasks lend themselves greatly to WFH, but not all of them.
the bottom line profit is your primary guideline if you are succeeding. Profits have been great for most companies for quite a while now. WFH works in most cases. The current push to end it, is simply a fad amongst CEOs because it's popular, not because it is proven or has merit. If you are in a construction crew, obviously you can't work from home. If you work in an office and mostly on your own "stuff" you can work from home and work more productively without all the office distractions and negative energy.
A company's profits can remain high even while operating very inefficiently.
You seem to have strong opinions on WFH. Find a job that agrees and allows this. If your current employer requires RTO, well.. they're paying you to be in the office so show up and stop the conspiracy theories.
It's objectively vastly more expensive to operate an office building or buildings. No organization is going to decide to incur the significant expenses and liabilities associated with operating facilities with people in them if they don't need to. Very little logic supports your claims, especially regarding the "CEO" and "fad" points you are attempting to make.
There's a complication to starting a company. The execs answer to the board and investors. Since so many companies are unprofitable for so long, it is very difficult to start a company today without either being rich or being beholden.
I'm going to guess that most people who start companies are beholden. The investors need people to RTO for some important reasons - real estate values, economies built on supporting workers, and of course - some amount of lifestyle differentiation (a luxury of having fuck you money is being able to spend more time with friends and loved ones than the peasant class).
WFH is a one of the most disruptive cultural shifts ever - pushback was only expected.
I attended a talk given by a local author who wrote a book about his father being the first black software engineer at IBM, who joined with several women around 1950, and the gist was that it was mostly to take some heat off of them for this collaboration.
in kindness to the previous poster, they are being as direct and truthful as one can be on a platform that has tilted hard to the right in the past 5 years and where discussion of the alluded-to-salute is flagged [0].
It’s striking how corporate complicity in systematic oppression can be sanitized over time until egregious patterns only resurface as political talking points.
for sure. but if ANY of that kind of thing gets in the way of profits, well then that's not OK. in capitalism, profit is the only thing that matters. CSAM? drugs? underage use? pfft.
until this country gets serious about this stuff - and don't hold your breath on that - this is the absolute acceptable norm.
i'm an american and it is is exactly stuff like this that causes me to avoid using services like this like the plague if i can avoid them.
despite living here, privacy to me is important. if i were this woman, i'd not let it go at all - don't give these scumbag companies agency to do what they want with impunity.
he had an excessive amount of cavities and the dentist did not use any supplementation. This was painful and unnecessary for my son (we stopped using that dentist when it was clear this isn't 'normal').
i realize this is n=1. but apparently calgary [0] also realized this was having an opposite effect as well. (yes i realize this is slightly different than supplementation in the parent article but the supplementation would have saved my kid from unnecessary cavities.)
[0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...
EDIT: clarity on 'supplementation'