If Rammstein wants to hurt the resellers and help their fans then add more shows at each venue. Quantity will cross a point where the price of resell tickets will be diluted.
Is the app simple? Yes. Do you have to purchase it? No.
Not sure why this turned into a critique of the programmer and subsequently his podcast and co-hosts.... weird.
I've been using the app since it was invite only and I gladly paid the yearly fee. Is the app perfect? No but what app is right out of the gate? I find the subscription the most useful feature of the app. Knowing there's a gate on the app ($$$ wise) has made my interactions with other photographers more worthwhile and genuine. There's currently one purpose here vs a million reasons other than photography on Instagram.
As far as usability uploading photos from my main camera isn't hard. All those photos get dropped and managed in OneDrive so when I'm ready to upload I can upload from my phone without a problem.
It's not better. Just different. The Glass app is geared around photographer fellowship giving that the conversation is driven by comments and not likes or upvoting.
Adobe had 3 generations of designers, etc hooked on their products because of ease of piracy much like drug dealers giving out samples of crack in early 80s to build their customer base. A large part of "their" patents came from companies they acquired and integrated versus innovating on their own. So I don't think patent portfolios are a good measure. Disclaimer: "May not apply in all situations. Use at your own discretion".
And now, the zeitgeist is if anything in the opposite direction: Capture One Pro, Raw Therapee, and Darktable have got a hell of a a lot better compared to Lightroom and C1P in particular proudly offers a lifetime license, not a subscription. Similarly, DaVinci Resolve has a free (if not FOSS) business model, designed explicitly to compete with Premiere, and, again, lifetime licenses. Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher are cheap, software that you "buy" and increasingly "good enough" for pro use, to the extent that many post about moving away from the CC treadmill to them.
Adobe arguably won this decade on the basis of the three generations you mentioned. I am not confident that they will win the next ones – the last time I printed an actual book, the publisher used CS6 ± Quark XPress internally (I wrote it in LaTeX; they had some tricks for printing it on SRA4 paper and wanted to use those tools to get the bleeds & trims right). The SaaS model was explicitly mentioned as a reason for sticking with the old software.
This was a great read but at the end of it all it's not a lesson anyone can learn from. It reads as a vent session with an underlying point of "check co-founder references". Would love to see a rebuttal from the other co-founder.
Isn't that interesting - the UK regulates medicines pretty closely, but I've just tried and I can go straight to the web site and buy one here, no questions asked.
This is the point. If you don't use the additional info somehow -- like eating or exercising differently based on info like BG fingersticks -- merely adding more info achieves zero.
That should be the takeaway lesson from this study. Just because some people stuck their fingers and gathered BG numbers three times a day does not mean they acted on that info to change their health. Until health pros make this clear to patients, that they need to actually use this info to adapt their lifestyle on a daily basis, there's simply no point in gathering daily info like this. And certainly not at a frequency of 3 or 4 times a day.
Once you've dialed in your lifestyle into regular eating and exercise habits, repeatedly gathering daily numbers is redundant overkill. Gathering BG numbers no more than one day a week should suffice, just to confirm you remain homeostatic.
Gathering info, by itself, changes nothing.
(BTW, I've had T2D for 15 years now. So I've walked the walk.)
If you're allowing a single data point to have that much power over what or how you think, you've already lost. Especially if you decide to ignore context like "I just lost water by running and I haven't had anything to drink yet", or even important variables like time of day. The number by itself is meaningless. Data (as in a ton of data points) with context can be incredibly useful. Don't blame the tool if you don't learn how to use it properly.
My A1c was awful before I started finger pricking and continued to be so until I started using a CGM. I have dropped to pre-diabetic levels now. I think the problem is the method. I can see why the study came to this conclusion using finger-pricking but having an easier method of checking would probably change the outcome of the study.
Concur. I was diagnosed with T2 about 3 weeks ago. I’ve been on a CGM for about two weeks. It’s been invaluable. Also much less uncomfortable since I’m not tearing my fingertips up.
I started out with a Dexcom but this insurance year they decided they weren't going to cover it because T2D doesn't have a benefit (allegedly). Maybe as a result of this study? I switched over to the Libre and I'm paying $85 out of pocket every month which is worth the ROI. The Dexcom is way more expensive.
Where's the evidence of this statement? It's well known that blood glucose monitors get a wide latitude for accuracy from the FDA anyways so real accuracy would be very difficult to determine.
Why would real accuracy be difficult to determine? Clinicians get to test these on their patient populations and validate against other high accuracy methods (point-in-time serum draws). For instance, Dr. Peter Attia says he gets a useful fraction of his clinic to use CGMs (as well as personal use), and over years sees a strong signal.
There are many other Drs that have gone on record.
Anecdotally - I helped a T1 diabetic friend set up Loop using a Dexcom G5 and then a G6. Over the course of many months of use, the G6 has proved MUCH more reliable and accurate than the G5, which resulted in far better Looping. The Loop community as a group seem to confirm this increased accuracy.
