This is a conversation that would be best be had with researchers who are already well immersed in the fields relating to remote and automated medical procedures. It's a vibrant area of research that has a fairly low degree of public awareness because of how many different disciplines are required to interact at an incredibly high level of fidelity and reliability under the extremely unpredictable environment of the human body.

Groups like the Scientific Computing and Imaging Lab at the University of Utah (with whom I have no affiliation but I have followed their work for decades) have been working in partnership with similar labs around the world for years to pioneer the types of technology you'd like to support and explore. By far, your best bet is to start understanding who the active research centers are, begin to learn the types of problem-solving resources that exist and the types of challenges that are specific to your medical domain, and find the areas within the vast array of resources that will inspire and motivate you through the rest of your journey.

I say all this not to discourage you, rather to encourage you to prepare appropriately for the mountain you're looking to climb. The foundations for this type of work have grown steadily for five decades, so you have a strong, resilient terrain upon which to build a legacy.

> I can't recall any of that stuff coming through

Then you'll be pleasantly surprised when you browse the topics they covered. Of course, everything isn't spot on but, to my surprise, there are quite a few that we've achieved or surpassed and a good chunk that are imminent. I was particularly surprised by how many space objectives are now current science instead of sci-fi aspirations.

I'm always happy to hear when good outcomes come from bad situations like that. I ended up taking over several rehabs in the 90s for friends who got in over their heads thanks to late night infomercials promising then untold riches from flipping. Hopefully your new home has been as welcoming as your first!

Two things happen with this proposal. First, this will dissuade many of the smallest, least prepared from attempting to flip properties. Overall, that's probably a good thing. Many of those (at least here in the US) are often in over their heads. They either end up in financial trouble beyond their means or their "improvement work" on the properties is substandard or even dangerous in some cases.

Secondly, this sort of change may lead to consolidation of properties into the hands of fewer, larger property companies who are more financially stable. That sort of consolidation (again, in the US) has led to situations where flippers/rehabbers/remodelers sit on properties longer and end up artificially inflating already elevated prices for properties. This seems to happen most noticably when one or two larger companies begin working through many properties in a neighborhood.

Overall, the intent behind the bill isn't a bad thing. I just hope they learn from their neighbors to the south and are prepared to counter some of the pitfalls that may come along in practice.