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?

I'm gonna need a detailed explanation of exactly what you mean, for the purposes of clear and effective communication.

Man, I feel sick, lemme check my health watch.

status: unhealthy

Can I receive healthcare?

no

What types of data does the US sell to advertisers? Do you have ANY evidence of the always listening mic? You'd figure after 10 years of this we'd have at least some evidence, right?

What types of data does the US sell to advertisers?

Types you haven't even thought of. Every type of data is sold, and then derivatives of data are sold. Directly collected data, inferred data, guesses, it's all packaged up.

Go on...

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition

A substantial part is that our food is filled with shit.

They add sugar to everything. Food marketing is insane, and so much of it should be illegal.

Sometimes I want to buy juice that doesn’t have a shitload of sugar in it. Getting a loaf of bread will involve eating extra sugar. The country subsidizes corn, so high fructose corn syrup is added to everything.

Unregulated hell capitalism means that food gets to be pumped full of shit. Broke and stressed people rely on convenience foods - which don’t need to be unhealthy but are purposefully made so with addictive ingredients.

Go on...

...but not too far!

Guess we’ll cut food stamps but tell people who can afford to to get a watch