Sure Bobby. I went and got myself an open-source "smart" watch that pairs with another FOSS app that doesn't send anything outside of the device.

What? Not like that? Oh, too bad.

My watch runs for years from a coin cell. There's no way that I'm replacing it with an internet connected spy device that constantly needs to be charged.

The best part is the random bill.

• Go to the doctor. Get blood drawn.
• Doctor send the blood to a lab for the test. Doesn't tell me who. I don't care who. It's their subcontractor, let them worry about it.
  *Go back to the doctor or get a call for results. Pay the doctor the standard co-pay.
  *Months later a random company sends me a bill. This is a company that I have never interacted with or entered into any contract with, for work that somebody else (presumably my doctor, but who the fuck knows for sure) asked them to do for them, sending the results to that other person and NOT to me.

The system is broken. If any other company subcontracted a part of their work to a third party, you as the client would reasonably expect that work to be paid through the original contract, not get a bill directly from the subcontractor. I didn't hire them, the doctor hired them. As far as I'm concerned, that's the doctor's subcontractor and their debt, not mine. I paid the doctor already.

Or another variant.

• Go to the emergency room.
• Get separate bills FOR THE SAME SERVICE from the hospital, the doctor, and somehow the hospital again but this time it's the emergency room (which is somehow separate with a different billing company).

The system is not just broken. It is designed to fleece us and train us to always accept whatever debt the institutions decide to levy on us without question.

He never said that he wants your data. Like, at all.You are just projecting. The Apple Watch BS claim is from the publication linked, not from him.

In fact, going by he actually said, you are doing exactly what he wants you to do. Use the data, if you want, to make better life and nutritional choices.

Keep doing it. You American seems to need it given your country's general health stats.

Yes, I am projecting, I will fully admit that. Which is why, as a watch person, I went with a smart watch solution that doesn't mine my data.

Appreciate the honesty, friend. You are awesome.

I never got into the wearables but I for sure use my phone. My phone is degoogled so I use health apps from F-Droid which help with tracking some metrics which also sync with my Nextcloud instance only, or do not request to have internet or network permissions.

I do think, like you that having some into IS useful and in that no government Left or rRght leaning should have your ior my nfo. That's just 1984 -type nightmare fuel.

Do you take your phone everywhere? Does it have a clock you use on it?

So, guess the only difference is that one has an armband and the other you stare at for a lot longer?

If you do not have a phone either, then hats off to you.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

eat shit and go to hell.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

What about sporting insertables instead?