GeorgeBMac

volcan said:

netrox said:

 It is just extremely complex and difficult to find a way to measure glucose without pricking a skin or putting a sensor under the skin

Sensor readings that are from just below the skin are not the same as blood readings. Sensor readings are taken from your interstitial fluid, and not from your blood. Interstitial fluid is the fluid that surrounds the cells of your tissue below your skin, and usually glucose moves from your blood vessels and capillaries first and then into your interstitial fluid which takes time and is probably why Dexcom only reads the glucose level every five minutes instead of continuously (CGM). And the readings from the interstitial fluid are almost always going to be lower than actual blood readings which is why you need to periodically calibrate the receiver app with an actual blood reading.

As a side bar, readings taken from a finger stick are also considered more accurate than with blood drawn from a vein because it is coming from a much smaller blood vessel.

Since interstitial fluid readings every five minutes will not show an accurate reading when the level of glucose is changing quickly in the blood, such as after eating or using insulin, it is best to look at trends rather than being overly concerned with a single reading. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I expect Apple to use some RF or light emitting technology to calculate the glucose in the capillaries by detecting some physical property like refraction or rotation of the signal. This way you would have continuous readings that would be more accurate, because you would be measuring the blood in the capillary, not the Interstitial fluid, and also you would not need a sensor under your skin.

In either case, sensor or actual blood sample, using insulin to control glucose levels is really just treating the symptom. Normal bodies create their own insulin that aids cells in absorbing sugar which they need to live. Diabetes is actually an immune disorder that prevents the body from producing insulin. In the future I would hope we can find a way to treat the underlying immune disorder instead of relying on insulin injections to maintain normal glucose levels.

Rayz2016 said:

danvm said:

DanielEran said:

billybob88 said:

"Apple's cheaper iPads are as satisfying as Surface Pros at twice the price"

See this is why no-one besides AI can take DED serious - the new iPad was just released a week or so ago, so how can he already draw those conclusions? No research or JD Power survey has these in it.
As said before, DED is doing this site a massive disservice with his factually wrong and overly biased articles. 

There is no comparison of a specific model (such as the new 2017 IPad) here. It was not even out when the survey was taken. But (and this next part is important)... Entry model iPads had previously been cheaper. Remember?

The point is: this comparison of the "user reported satisfaction" across the entire $300-1200 range of iPads vs $800-$1600 Surface Pros is flawed, but also indicated that everything else being said about tablets is also not in sync with what buyers themselves think.

There is other point from the study: There are people who are pleased with the "toaster/fridge" device.  Years ago, you had an article where Cook said,

"You wouldn't want to put these things together because you end up compromising in both and not pleasing either user."
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/24/tim_cook_says_windows_8_style_tablet_pc_convergence_wont_please_anyone

Looks like he was wrong, and now Microsoft (not Apple) is the one pushing innovation on the hardware with the Surface line, both in mobile and desktop.  Let's see how Apple respond in the next few years. 

Whether he is wrong or not  kind of depends on how many people are buying them.

How many Surface machines are being sold? More or less than iPads?