TAR.gz RPM Deb PPA flatpak Snap AUR ebuild tar.bz2. configure make make install. It's all fun in the Linux packaging factory.
There are other actual package formats you didn't mention.
You included tar.gz and tar.bz2 and those aren't packaging formats, although they could be used for that (as well as zip). And compiling from source is not a packaging format. Sheesh.
There are lots of ways to find music and actually support the artists. I find stuff on youtube, and if I like it I may rip it (to listen in my car). If I really like it, I will support the artist on whatever site they have (e.g. bandcamp.com) I have found quite a lot of good stuff that you will NEVER hear on any of these services that cater to the masses. Check out youtube channels or bandcamp.com, or whatever you can find. And by all means support the artists by buying their stuff.
It's usually priced right, and sends the real message to the RIAA - we don't need you any more!
It's OK to use facial recognition as a convenient way to unlock your phone, but not to track you when you walk down the street. It's OK to use facial recognition as a way to find friends by the pictures they post, but not to track your known associates in defying the government.
The tech is the same, just who uses it. If you want to object to selling it to China, why didn't you object to doing it for InstaFaceTwits?
I think that's kind of the point - it DOES matter what it is being used for. Granted, you can't control how it's used after it's been created, but if you are developing something like facial recognition you KNOW it will be used for nefarious reasons at some point.
There are all kinds of things like this that I refuse to use - facial recognition, fingerprint readers, facebook, smart devices that monitor you (Echo, fitbit, etc.) My location on my phone is turned off, unless I need to use it. Webcams are unplugged when not in use. I'm not naive enough to think that I am still not being tracked by Google et al because we do live in the digital age. But I am not about just to give up all information about myself freely for goofy convenience.
Sure, but that is a decision that an individual is making. The device is designed to do a certain function, and the individual chooses to use that device or not. Is it the fault of the fitbit or the manufacturer of the fitbit that this happened?
No, not at all. But when they partner with other companies, like insurance companies, it gets very dangerous. It's really a cost/benefit equation. The benefit is instant gratification. The cost is long reaching. EULAs are quagmires in their own right, does anyone ever read them fully and understand them? There is a much simpler way to handle it - don't give out your information if you cannot control how it is used. I am not foolish enough to think that these days you can realistically do that in every case, but that is a long way from saying "oh well, everyone has all my information anyway, so go ahead and track my every movement like a wild coyote"
On the other hand, knowingly having compromised servers like that would be a PR nightmare, so Apple and Amazon would also have an incentive to say 'everything is fine'. That is what makes stories like this so frustrating... unless the FBI chimes in, everyone is saying pretty much what you would expect to say regardless of if the story is accurate or not.
Not only that, but if it WAS discovered and our government knew, we certainly wouldn't come out and confront China about it. We would have the advantage because we could then provide misinformation to a country that was spying on us.
While the fitbit is not marketed as a crime-fighting device, it was a useful tool in this investigation. I don't really see what the problem here is. There is no indication that the victim was wearing the fitbit against her own will.
I think that is exactly the problem. People wear them (seemingly) at will. People willingly give up more and more information about themselves. In this case, it could be used to catch a killer which nobody could really argue against.
The real point is that so many people are willing to give up their personal data without thought to how it can be used against them. You can't get that data back. Where I work, our health insurance company penalizes you for not using these trackers. Um, I mean you get a discount if you do. So almost everyone I work with went out and bought one of those things and sync it up with our healthcare provider. "Hey, look how many steps I took today!" You can actually track the data manually on a website, but people are willing to sell their information for convenience. And to an insurance company! If they can find any reason to use that information against you, they most certainly will. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but you've given them the ammunition.
So yay for this one case where the information may be used for good. There will be many many other instances where it is not used for good.
Not only was the defendant going 15 MPH over the speed limit, but he was also posting messages to facebook during this time. Based on his GPS data, we have concluded that he alsolied to officers about where he had been and where he was going. So we are recommending in addition to the traffic violation a charge of reckless endangerment and providing false information to officers.
Luck of the draw I guess... I sure didn't want to go through them all. Out of curiosity I looked at about 6 or so of them. One was in Italian, one was a dead link, one was a link to just a website. I also said the others looked legitimate at a glance. The onus lies on the one trying to make the point with the "research". It shouldn't be that easy cast doubt on its validity.
Solid source of scientific evidence right there. The description of their website is actually longer than the article that was linked to: "We livestream from protests, expose bullshit and discrimination and tell you which kebab shops are worth your money. Our London office is run by 23-year-olds, who write seriously hot takes, sickeningly accurate guides to life, and chat to Jeremy Corbyn about Love Island. The Tab Network – our guerilla army of bold and subversive student reporters across the country – breaks stories like this lovely young man who burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man"
Also a youtube video. A norwegian documentary posted by someone whose channel has this description: "A channel for atheism, anti-feminism, games, history, and whatever else pops into the vast and labyrinthine space that is my mind."
Other ones seemed to be more legitimate, but some of his graphs and things seemed plausible. But he clearly has a bad case of selection and confirmation bias.
Way too many conferences already have one guy, or girl, who decides to bring a pot of shit to stir instead of any actual contribution to the conference.
Disagreeing with the status quo is not "bring[ing] a pot of shit to stir". Strumia provided evidence to support his claims. If he is wrong, then provide evidence that he is wrong.
Evidence huh? Did you actually read his presentation? Seriously, there is a link to it right there in the summary. Go through the whole thing. Evidence indeed. If I didn't know it came from a professor (with an obvious axe to grind) I would have guessed it was done by a 9th grader. (with an axe to grind)
The realist in me tells me that he is probably getting some kind of ad revenue from the number of viewers or some such thing... and it doesn't matter if he succeeds or not, but how many people watch. It's just an extension of the number of clicks, or likes, or whatever. Being a product and making money by advertising is unfortunately a thing now.
Here's a simple question for you...if Windows is better or even as good as Linux as a server, then why are now half of the VMs in Azure Linux, and every month it goes up? This is according to Microsoft's VP of the Cloud and Enterprise group.
A coworker of mine said that interviewing is a game of chance. You get the job where you know the answers to the questions asked in the interview. His ratio was 10-20 interviews to one job.
I'd say that's about the right ratio. Although, you can answer every single question correctly and still not get the job. Because it's not always about the answers. Usually when we get together after the interviews to talk about the candidates, and we are considering someone, we ask "would you want them on your team?" It's usually the deciding factor.
Another rich smug liberal who now thinks he has a moral compass.
As opposed to the rich smug conservatives who don't have one?
I don't know anything about this guy, or really any billionaire. I would imagine that much money would change a lot of what you do, and might even change who you are as a person. Maybe it depends on if you made it yourself over a long period of time, a relatively short period, if you inherited it, or have a trust fund you were born into. But I think there are billionaires of all types, and their opinion of things is really no different to me than anyone else's. Especially people who turn everything into an opportunity to insult those who don't believe what they themselves believe.
I agree with what you are saying, and was planning to post a similar response about how grade can be meaningless in a lot of cases. But instead, your post made me wonder what counts as "expertise"?
I think beyond "clearly an expert" and "clearly not an expert" it all gets very murky. I would be good to be able to measure it, but I don't know how you could do it. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play.
I remember when I interviewed for my current job, which is mostly a Windows shop, one of the architects asked me about my proficiency with Linux. I said that I had switched to it in '99 and never looked back. He said "oh, so you're an expert at it" and I assured him that I was not an expert. I said that I knew enough about it to know that there is so much more that I don't know. He tested me with a few questions like what distro I ran, how I would do this or that. I tried not to geek out in my answers, but he could tell I wasn't faking it.
As a manager, I always find it interesting, and quite disheartening, when interviewing candidates about their technical skills. It seems that candidates now like to categorize their skills by expertise levels. It's kind of disheartening when someone says they are an expert in Linux and they have no answer to "vi or emacs?". Or they don't know what grep is. I once had someone who "helped architect and implement in AWS". Since we were building a platform on AWS, I asked him about his experience with that. He admitted that he had NEVER worked in AWS.
So as I said, it would be nice to be able to measure expertise, I don't see how you could realistically actually do that.
Many times people put up with the assholes because they are good technically. But if you can be technically good AND get along with people... you and everyone else will be much better off.
I can argue that everyone else will be better off and you won't be, as people will be more likely to act as a drain on your time needing assistance due to their own deficiencies. If you're mediocre technically and get along with people, you and everyone else will be much better off... but if you're objectively better by a too greater degree and get on well with people then people will seek you out as being the "guru" and make your life unnecessarily harder.
I disagree. Getting along with people means that you can certainly draw boundaries, and say "I can't do that", or in some other way, without resorting to being an asshole to them.
I prefer to live as it was told in the Book of Dalton:
"A student asked the teacher "Being called a cocksucker isn't personal?" And Dalton said unto him "No, it is two words combined to elicit a prescribed response." The student continued "What if somebody calls my mama a whore?" To wit Dalton replied "Is she? Now go forth, and be nice. Be nice - until it is time to not be nice."
I swim and cycle competitively and I also have high cholesterol, but the doctors here (Canada) specifically avoided statins because they can cause muscle cramping, which tends to reduce exercise volume. I'm not saying that there are no unscrupulous doctors here that are swayed by pitches from big pharmaceutical companies, but it does seem less likely when the system is actually concerned with your health and not you as an ongoing profit stream.
(The doctors also said the high cholesterol is likely genetic and not to worry about it, despite the history of heart disease in my family. Being an active athlete with a decent diet is already the most they could ask me to do.)
Wow, something that makes sense. Who would have thought? There is one thing that having high cholesterol will definitively tell you though... that you have high cholesterol. That is it. There is no absolute link between high cholesterol and heart disease.. or any other major problem. If that link was there, then every person that had heart disease would have high cholesterol. But that is not the case. Just like saying "eating fat makes you fat" - people have been trained to believe it, and even doctors think it in the face of no evidence to prove it.
I haven't tried to get a real lipid panel done because my insurance won't cover it.
So you're encouraged to wear a tracker (they even call them that outright!), but you can't get a routine lab test. That should tell you all you need to know about the insurer's agenda and priorities.
By "real lipid panel" I mean an extensive one, that will test for particle size, etc. There are only a couple of labs in the country that do those. The basic one that everyone does tells you nothing useful. Even if I could get the real panel done and it was covered, I don't know if I would - because then the insurance company would know if I had a higher risk of heart disease. Bottom line is, I don't fucking trust them with any of my health information!
I have always maintained that software development requires technical skill, but unless you do it alone it's really hard to work on a team if you are an asshole. Many times people put up with the assholes because they are good technically. But if you can be technically good AND get along with people... you and everyone else will be much better off.
I am really starting to despise this "we have to be #1" thing. Nobody can just be good anymore, and the lure of being the best is like a death-knell. Why? Is being successful and 2nd or 3rd so bad? What happened to longevity and simply building a great product? The company I am at used to be #1 in our market for our product, for like 5 years in a row... then we were bought by a large company, and they royally screwed us up... e.g. moved our client support team into the corporate structure, so not only was it harder for our clients to actually get support, but they would get people who didn't know our product at all. All of our numbers sank, and we were #4 of 5 is our niche market.
However, we still made a product better than our competitors. So they brought in new leadership, we became our own business unit so we could re-focus the way we were before. Our customers loved it. We were #2 in the market after about a year. Yay!
Not good enough. We need to be in the cloud so we can get new business and regain #1 - because it is the future, and #1 is cloud-based. [even though our product is better, and does 10x what #1's does] Nope, gotta be in the cloud, gotta be cutting edge. Even though our clients are large hospitals and adopt change very slowly. And despite the dev groups strong advice, we are changing our entire technology stack, farming out a lot of the work, and are struggling HARD to get anything done. It's do-or-die to get to the cloud, because... the cloud. And we're losing people, because what seasoned developer wants to change everything they know? Who wants to basically start over, try to pick up the pieces from a failed project, and have management berate them for not producing fast enough?
The software industry is falling prey to this instant-gratification mindset that social media is driving. Not everything needs to fit that mold.
Where I work we have a health plan set up with Virgin Pulse, and everyone is strongly encouraged to get trackers for #of steps etc. Pretty much everyone has them, because hey - they're cool right? And it automatically uploads your info. Luckily for me, you are still able to manually enter your steps and other info - so I wrote a script I run every morning to go log into the site and enter them. Why would I even bother? Because they charge you a lot more for your policy if you don't. You have to hit a certain goal for the quarter or they penalize you.. whoops, I mean, you don't get the discount. And it is several hundred dollars.
But I REFUSE to be tagged and tracked like a wild animal, all for the sake of "fitness". Which is a total sham. The "nutrition advice" and pseudo-medical tips they constantly hammer you with on their site are garbage. I lie on the surveys, and tell them what they want to hear. Not because I eat garbage and don't want them to know, but because I know better than their one-size-fits-all advice. I know what I know through personal research, and listening to actual experts on these things. I have been at my ideal weight for 6 years, and the only "concern" with my health is high cholesterol - which I don't really know if it is a concern or not. I haven't tried to get a real lipid panel done because my insurance won't cover it. There are 5 indicators for metabolic syndrome, and my cholesterol is the only one that isn't perfect. Yet doctors will try to put me on statins - based on one overly generalized test that tells you nothing valuable. High cholesterol, in and of itself, tells you nothing about possible risks to your health. "any history of heart issues?" Yes, my father had 2 stints put in a couple of years ago. "ahh, I see... so we should put you on statins". Oh, by the way, my father has an absolutely normal lipid panel. So why do you want to prescribe statins to me again?
Our healthcare and insurance industries are abysmal. I went for a checkup once (required by the healthplan) and all was well. A couple of weeks later, I got a letter from my life insurance company that said I was required to enter rehab in order to keep my policy. I called my agent, who I knew pretty well, and he said he couldn't talk about it. I tried to call my doctor, and doctors don't talk to you. This went on for a few days, and finally I was a bit frantic and my life insurance guy said "your doctor indicated that you use drugs, so you need to attend rehab to keep your policy". I was LIVID. I left a VERY terse message at my doctor's office and did something that I hate - I threatened legal action if they did not contact me. I eventually found out that the medical assistant, who had done the whole "do you smoke... do you drink... " questions at the beginning of that visit had checked that I use marijuana. Which I do not. I still never found out why, but have to assume it was some mistake - why would I say I did? Anyway, I demanded that they send a letter to my insurance company to tell them it was a mistake on their part. Now... I don't tell my doctor anything. I answer all their stupid little questions the way they want me to, and I go about my life. What REALLY burns me about this is that it was my life insurance company (not my health insurance) that knew about this mistake - but because it was protected information, they couldn't actually tell me what was going on. It's an old word, but "cahoots" is about as perfect of a word that can be used to describe it.
My point is - don't play into these types of programs. It may seem easy, but it is such a slippery slope. It's only paranoid if they aren't out to get you - and these fuckers are out to get you! Not to mention that their data collection is only to benefit them, not you. If you think all the people who have those fitness trackers are getting healthier because of them... think again. Everyone is still the same. The overweight lady who wears her tracker and goes to the gym every day is still gaining wei
Slashdot Mirror
TAR.gz RPM Deb PPA flatpak Snap AUR ebuild tar.bz2. configure make make install. It's all fun in the Linux packaging factory.
There are other actual package formats you didn't mention.
You included tar.gz and tar.bz2 and those aren't packaging formats, although they could be used for that (as well as zip). And compiling from source is not a packaging format. Sheesh.
There are lots of ways to find music and actually support the artists.
I find stuff on youtube, and if I like it I may rip it (to listen in my car). If I really like it, I will support the artist on whatever site they have (e.g. bandcamp.com) I have found quite a lot of good stuff that you will NEVER hear on any of these services that cater to the masses. Check out youtube channels or bandcamp.com, or whatever you can find. And by all means support the artists by buying their stuff.
It's usually priced right, and sends the real message to the RIAA - we don't need you any more!
It's OK to use facial recognition as a convenient way to unlock your phone, but not to track you when you walk down the street.
It's OK to use facial recognition as a way to find friends by the pictures they post, but not to track your known associates in defying the government.
The tech is the same, just who uses it. If you want to object to selling it to China, why didn't you object to doing it for InstaFaceTwits?
I think that's kind of the point - it DOES matter what it is being used for. Granted, you can't control how it's used after it's been created, but if you are developing something like facial recognition you KNOW it will be used for nefarious reasons at some point.
There are all kinds of things like this that I refuse to use - facial recognition, fingerprint readers, facebook, smart devices that monitor you (Echo, fitbit, etc.) My location on my phone is turned off, unless I need to use it. Webcams are unplugged when not in use. I'm not naive enough to think that I am still not being tracked by Google et al because we do live in the digital age. But I am not about just to give up all information about myself freely for goofy convenience.
Instagram
Sure, but that is a decision that an individual is making. The device is designed to do a certain function, and the individual chooses to use that device or not. Is it the fault of the fitbit or the manufacturer of the fitbit that this happened?
No, not at all. But when they partner with other companies, like insurance companies, it gets very dangerous. It's really a cost/benefit equation. The benefit is instant gratification. The cost is long reaching. EULAs are quagmires in their own right, does anyone ever read them fully and understand them? There is a much simpler way to handle it - don't give out your information if you cannot control how it is used. I am not foolish enough to think that these days you can realistically do that in every case, but that is a long way from saying "oh well, everyone has all my information anyway, so go ahead and track my every movement like a wild coyote"
On the other hand, knowingly having compromised servers like that would be a PR nightmare, so Apple and Amazon would also have an incentive to say 'everything is fine'. That is what makes stories like this so frustrating... unless the FBI chimes in, everyone is saying pretty much what you would expect to say regardless of if the story is accurate or not.
Not only that, but if it WAS discovered and our government knew, we certainly wouldn't come out and confront China about it. We would have the advantage because we could then provide misinformation to a country that was spying on us.
While the fitbit is not marketed as a crime-fighting device, it was a useful tool in this investigation. I don't really see what the problem here is. There is no indication that the victim was wearing the fitbit against her own will.
I think that is exactly the problem. People wear them (seemingly) at will. People willingly give up more and more information about themselves.
In this case, it could be used to catch a killer which nobody could really argue against.
The real point is that so many people are willing to give up their personal data without thought to how it can be used against them. You can't get that data back.
Where I work, our health insurance company penalizes you for not using these trackers. Um, I mean you get a discount if you do. So almost everyone I work with went out and bought one of those things and sync it up with our healthcare provider. "Hey, look how many steps I took today!" You can actually track the data manually on a website, but people are willing to sell their information for convenience. And to an insurance company! If they can find any reason to use that information against you, they most certainly will. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but you've given them the ammunition.
So yay for this one case where the information may be used for good. There will be many many other instances where it is not used for good.
Not only was the defendant going 15 MPH over the speed limit, but he was also posting messages to facebook during this time. Based on his GPS data, we have concluded that he alsolied to officers about where he had been and where he was going. So we are recommending in addition to the traffic violation a charge of reckless endangerment and providing false information to officers.
I am glad you can now breath easier.
Luck of the draw I guess... I sure didn't want to go through them all. Out of curiosity I looked at about 6 or so of them. One was in Italian, one was a dead link, one was a link to just a website. I also said the others looked legitimate at a glance. The onus lies on the one trying to make the point with the "research". It shouldn't be that easy cast doubt on its validity.
https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811
Solid source of scientific evidence right there.
The description of their website is actually longer than the article that was linked to: "We livestream from protests, expose bullshit and discrimination and tell you which kebab shops are worth your money. Our London office is run by 23-year-olds, who write seriously hot takes, sickeningly accurate guides to life, and chat to Jeremy Corbyn about Love Island.
The Tab Network – our guerilla army of bold and subversive student reporters across the country – breaks stories like this lovely young man who burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man"
Also a youtube video. A norwegian documentary posted by someone whose channel has this description: "A channel for atheism, anti-feminism, games, history, and whatever else pops into the vast and labyrinthine space that is my mind."
Other ones seemed to be more legitimate, but some of his graphs and things seemed plausible. But he clearly has a bad case of selection and confirmation bias.
Way too many conferences already have one guy, or girl, who decides to bring a pot of shit to stir instead of any actual contribution to the conference.
Disagreeing with the status quo is not "bring[ing] a pot of shit to stir". Strumia provided evidence to support his claims. If he is wrong, then provide evidence that he is wrong.
Evidence huh? Did you actually read his presentation? Seriously, there is a link to it right there in the summary. Go through the whole thing. Evidence indeed.
If I didn't know it came from a professor (with an obvious axe to grind) I would have guessed it was done by a 9th grader. (with an axe to grind)
But... I guess they bought github, so that's sort of a roundabout way to safe face.
The realist in me tells me that he is probably getting some kind of ad revenue from the number of viewers or some such thing... and it doesn't matter if he succeeds or not, but how many people watch. It's just an extension of the number of clicks, or likes, or whatever. Being a product and making money by advertising is unfortunately a thing now.
Here's a simple question for you...if Windows is better or even as good as Linux as a server, then why are now half of the VMs in Azure Linux, and every month it goes up? This is according to Microsoft's VP of the Cloud and Enterprise group.
A coworker of mine said that interviewing is a game of chance. You get the job where you know the answers to the questions asked in the interview. His ratio was 10-20 interviews to one job.
I'd say that's about the right ratio. Although, you can answer every single question correctly and still not get the job. Because it's not always about the answers. Usually when we get together after the interviews to talk about the candidates, and we are considering someone, we ask "would you want them on your team?" It's usually the deciding factor.
How can you be a former lifelong anything? Are you dead?
Life ends when you sell your soul.
Another rich smug liberal who now thinks he has a moral compass.
As opposed to the rich smug conservatives who don't have one?
I don't know anything about this guy, or really any billionaire. I would imagine that much money would change a lot of what you do, and might even change who you are as a person. Maybe it depends on if you made it yourself over a long period of time, a relatively short period, if you inherited it, or have a trust fund you were born into. But I think there are billionaires of all types, and their opinion of things is really no different to me than anyone else's. Especially people who turn everything into an opportunity to insult those who don't believe what they themselves believe.
I agree with what you are saying, and was planning to post a similar response about how grade can be meaningless in a lot of cases.
But instead, your post made me wonder what counts as "expertise"?
I think beyond "clearly an expert" and "clearly not an expert" it all gets very murky. I would be good to be able to measure it, but I don't know how you could do it. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play.
I remember when I interviewed for my current job, which is mostly a Windows shop, one of the architects asked me about my proficiency with Linux. I said that I had switched to it in '99 and never looked back. He said "oh, so you're an expert at it" and I assured him that I was not an expert. I said that I knew enough about it to know that there is so much more that I don't know. He tested me with a few questions like what distro I ran, how I would do this or that. I tried not to geek out in my answers, but he could tell I wasn't faking it.
As a manager, I always find it interesting, and quite disheartening, when interviewing candidates about their technical skills. It seems that candidates now like to categorize their skills by expertise levels. It's kind of disheartening when someone says they are an expert in Linux and they have no answer to "vi or emacs?". Or they don't know what grep is. I once had someone who "helped architect and implement in AWS". Since we were building a platform on AWS, I asked him about his experience with that. He admitted that he had NEVER worked in AWS.
So as I said, it would be nice to be able to measure expertise, I don't see how you could realistically actually do that.
Many times people put up with the assholes because they are good technically. But if you can be technically good AND get along with people... you and everyone else will be much better off.
I can argue that everyone else will be better off and you won't be, as people will be more likely to act as a drain on your time needing assistance due to their own deficiencies. If you're mediocre technically and get along with people, you and everyone else will be much better off... but if you're objectively better by a too greater degree and get on well with people then people will seek you out as being the "guru" and make your life unnecessarily harder.
I disagree. Getting along with people means that you can certainly draw boundaries, and say "I can't do that", or in some other way, without resorting to being an asshole to them.
I prefer to live as it was told in the Book of Dalton:
"A student asked the teacher "Being called a cocksucker isn't personal?"
And Dalton said unto him "No, it is two words combined to elicit a prescribed response."
The student continued "What if somebody calls my mama a whore?"
To wit Dalton replied "Is she? Now go forth, and be nice. Be nice - until it is time to not be nice."
I swim and cycle competitively and I also have high cholesterol, but the doctors here (Canada) specifically avoided statins because they can cause muscle cramping, which tends to reduce exercise volume. I'm not saying that there are no unscrupulous doctors here that are swayed by pitches from big pharmaceutical companies, but it does seem less likely when the system is actually concerned with your health and not you as an ongoing profit stream.
(The doctors also said the high cholesterol is likely genetic and not to worry about it, despite the history of heart disease in my family. Being an active athlete with a decent diet is already the most they could ask me to do.)
Wow, something that makes sense. Who would have thought? There is one thing that having high cholesterol will definitively tell you though... that you have high cholesterol. That is it. There is no absolute link between high cholesterol and heart disease.. or any other major problem. If that link was there, then every person that had heart disease would have high cholesterol. But that is not the case. Just like saying "eating fat makes you fat" - people have been trained to believe it, and even doctors think it in the face of no evidence to prove it.
I haven't tried to get a real lipid panel done because my insurance won't cover it.
So you're encouraged to wear a tracker (they even call them that outright!), but you can't get a routine lab test. That should tell you all you need to know about the insurer's agenda and priorities.
By "real lipid panel" I mean an extensive one, that will test for particle size, etc. There are only a couple of labs in the country that do those. The basic one that everyone does tells you nothing useful. Even if I could get the real panel done and it was covered, I don't know if I would - because then the insurance company would know if I had a higher risk of heart disease. Bottom line is, I don't fucking trust them with any of my health information!
I have always maintained that software development requires technical skill, but unless you do it alone it's really hard to work on a team if you are an asshole. Many times people put up with the assholes because they are good technically. But if you can be technically good AND get along with people... you and everyone else will be much better off.
I am really starting to despise this "we have to be #1" thing. Nobody can just be good anymore, and the lure of being the best is like a death-knell.
Why? Is being successful and 2nd or 3rd so bad? What happened to longevity and simply building a great product?
The company I am at used to be #1 in our market for our product, for like 5 years in a row... then we were bought by a large company, and they royally screwed us up... e.g. moved our client support team into the corporate structure, so not only was it harder for our clients to actually get support, but they would get people who didn't know our product at all. All of our numbers sank, and we were #4 of 5 is our niche market.
However, we still made a product better than our competitors. So they brought in new leadership, we became our own business unit so we could re-focus the way we were before. Our customers loved it. We were #2 in the market after about a year. Yay!
Not good enough. We need to be in the cloud so we can get new business and regain #1 - because it is the future, and #1 is cloud-based. [even though our product is better, and does 10x what #1's does] Nope, gotta be in the cloud, gotta be cutting edge. Even though our clients are large hospitals and adopt change very slowly. And despite the dev groups strong advice, we are changing our entire technology stack, farming out a lot of the work, and are struggling HARD to get anything done. It's do-or-die to get to the cloud, because... the cloud. And we're losing people, because what seasoned developer wants to change everything they know? Who wants to basically start over, try to pick up the pieces from a failed project, and have management berate them for not producing fast enough?
The software industry is falling prey to this instant-gratification mindset that social media is driving. Not everything needs to fit that mold.
Where I work we have a health plan set up with Virgin Pulse, and everyone is strongly encouraged to get trackers for #of steps etc.
Pretty much everyone has them, because hey - they're cool right? And it automatically uploads your info. Luckily for me, you are still able to manually enter your steps and other info - so I wrote a script I run every morning to go log into the site and enter them. Why would I even bother? Because they charge you a lot more for your policy if you don't. You have to hit a certain goal for the quarter or they penalize you.. whoops, I mean, you don't get the discount. And it is several hundred dollars.
But I REFUSE to be tagged and tracked like a wild animal, all for the sake of "fitness". Which is a total sham. The "nutrition advice" and pseudo-medical tips they constantly hammer you with on their site are garbage. I lie on the surveys, and tell them what they want to hear. Not because I eat garbage and don't want them to know, but because I know better than their one-size-fits-all advice. I know what I know through personal research, and listening to actual experts on these things. I have been at my ideal weight for 6 years, and the only "concern" with my health is high cholesterol - which I don't really know if it is a concern or not. I haven't tried to get a real lipid panel done because my insurance won't cover it. There are 5 indicators for metabolic syndrome, and my cholesterol is the only one that isn't perfect. Yet doctors will try to put me on statins - based on one overly generalized test that tells you nothing valuable. High cholesterol, in and of itself, tells you nothing about possible risks to your health. "any history of heart issues?" Yes, my father had 2 stints put in a couple of years ago. "ahh, I see... so we should put you on statins". Oh, by the way, my father has an absolutely normal lipid panel. So why do you want to prescribe statins to me again?
Our healthcare and insurance industries are abysmal. I went for a checkup once (required by the healthplan) and all was well. A couple of weeks later, I got a letter from my life insurance company that said I was required to enter rehab in order to keep my policy. I called my agent, who I knew pretty well, and he said he couldn't talk about it. I tried to call my doctor, and doctors don't talk to you. This went on for a few days, and finally I was a bit frantic and my life insurance guy said "your doctor indicated that you use drugs, so you need to attend rehab to keep your policy". I was LIVID. I left a VERY terse message at my doctor's office and did something that I hate - I threatened legal action if they did not contact me. I eventually found out that the medical assistant, who had done the whole "do you smoke... do you drink... " questions at the beginning of that visit had checked that I use marijuana. Which I do not. I still never found out why, but have to assume it was some mistake - why would I say I did? Anyway, I demanded that they send a letter to my insurance company to tell them it was a mistake on their part. Now... I don't tell my doctor anything. I answer all their stupid little questions the way they want me to, and I go about my life. What REALLY burns me about this is that it was my life insurance company (not my health insurance) that knew about this mistake - but because it was protected information, they couldn't actually tell me what was going on. It's an old word, but "cahoots" is about as perfect of a word that can be used to describe it.
My point is - don't play into these types of programs. It may seem easy, but it is such a slippery slope. It's only paranoid if they aren't out to get you - and these fuckers are out to get you! Not to mention that their data collection is only to benefit them, not you. If you think all the people who have those fitness trackers are getting healthier because of them... think again. Everyone is still the same. The overweight lady who wears her tracker and goes to the gym every day is still gaining wei