I've gone through multiple sport watches: Garmin, Suunto, now Apple series 3. The Suunto and Apple watch are both multi-sport watches (Running, swimming, biking). I mainly use them as running watches, but I wear them all the time. Suunto was like a diving watch; so, I only wore it when I ran. For me I want a sport watch I can wear all the -- I don't want to be changing watches to go run. The latest Garmins and the Apple watch definitely meet this criteria. My garmin forerunner 230 lasted a lot longer without a charge than the apple watch.

As for non-sport stuff, the apple watch is much better than the Garmin. The notification stuff on the Garmin forerunner 230 was annoying, but the alerts when I was being called was a nice touch. Notifications on the apple watch are much better. At home or in the office, I don't need to have my phone on my person. In any case, all my gear is apple; so, having an apply watch makes a lot of things pretty seamless. Apple watch was about the same price as my forerunner.

I don't have a cellular capable watch, but I have my phone with me all the time so that's not really an issue. I've been running with my phone for a couple of years to get audio announcements of pace and heart rate. Now of course I have to have two things charged, not just one -- then there are the wireless headphones.

For running, the Garmin appears to be more accurate than my apple, probably because it has both GPS and Glosnos (based on one half marathon), but even the garmin loses accuracy when trail running. The garmin app for the iPhone is better at reporting on your run than Nike run club, but the nike run club seems more focused on coaching. I like the coaching idea a lot because I am in that reading glasses stage of life where I don't get a lot of detail from watch displays when there is sweat in my eyes. Audio cues are the way to go unless you have glasses with a heads up display (e.g., for the serious cyclist) and some way to deal with the sweat. The haptic feature on the apple watch is better than the garmin beeps and vibration for cues (gamin might have improved since I bought my watch). The apple watch also has an integrated heart rate monitor (wrist), which is probably good enough for running, but rumored to not be all that great for HIIT workouts. No chest strap, so less gear to deal with or forget.

Accuracy matters and I'm not sure yet whether the apple watch is accurate enough. During a run, its mostly a sensor platform with some haptic cueing and minimal display. For me, coaching (run plan, intervals, and so on) comes from the phone. Which watch is better during a run depends partly on accuracy, partly on supporting apps, and one's aspirations. Right now, the big differentiator is the apps, which are a mixed bag. Some have better analytics; some have better coaching. When I'm not running the apple watch is a better watch -- my garmin is just a watch. At the moment, I like my apple watch better.

SpaceX is not a public company. I suspect this matters a lot per your point. It is, however, not immune to difficulties in other Musk enterprises or so one would think.

Let's assume that the evidence of Russian involvement in the election is a fact. Thus far, it seems that less than a million dollars in advertising has been uncovered. In an election where billons were probably spent in advertising and where it would be a kindness to refer to most political communication as drivel, misinformation, propaganda, outright lies, or evidence of mind numbing ineptitude, the only response worthy of the situation is "and this is a problem because ...". I suspect that the number of players at this spending level lacking anything amounting to a moral compass or that can be classified as a wack job is legion (I know we are talking about politics and some may think this is a distinction without a difference, but somedays I just want to be irrational). Of course, there is that Slavic part of the family with funny names of which one might be suspicious, but their origins are Slovenian not Russian. In any case, current Russian meddling in the political process through advertising seems to be at an order of magnitude that falls below that of a roundoff error. Which means the current fixation on Russian meddling is a red herring (of course the Russians might be fueling this fire for their own evil purposes). Nonetheless, Russian meddling, or that of any other nation-state, for the purpose of disruption to the point that we are ungovernable is a clear and present danger that the internet makes all too possible. We only have ourselves to blame, however, for our sensitivity to such meddling, for we have created a political environment rife with discord that makes us brittle and prone to distrust -- fertile ground indeed for those that wish us ill.

I wouldn't call the problem solved. My experience is that good monitoring is both problematic and essential. The effective use of test strips and glucometers requires discipline, something that children and teens are lacking, not to mention quite a few adults. As the balance of responsibility for monitoring shifts from parent to child, it becomes more of a challenge. Bluetooth monitors (e.g., dexcom) are minimally invasive, but you can't just take them on and off, which means they can limit one's activities. For example, despite following guidelines provided by the manufacturer, they still come off when swimming laps, which means no swim team or no bluetooth monitoring for several months -- no judgements, swimming is a pretty harsh environment for a medical device. Even so, when monitoring is a shared responsibility there is always the opportunity for conflict. Non-invasive, passive, and accurate monitoring does not solve compliance problems, but it does remove one of the barriers to compliance. It does not cure the disease, but it seems like an essential precursor for passive, automatic blood glucose maintenance. And sure, if it eliminates all those consumables and remains affordable, it reduces health care costs as well. No it's not the holy grail, but it remains a high risk endeavor that has merit and looks solvable. Curing the disease would have far greater benefit, but I assume that the risk of failure is staggeringly high. Not to mention, if a company builds hardware, they may begin their exploration of this market by building sensors they can pair with their hardware. They are not a pharmaceutical or medical device company. Curing the disease is in someone else's wheelhouse. The whole self-driving car problem is an interesting comparison.

If one wants to be in shape, get in shape, or some such, a fitness tracker is helpful. It's difficult to deceive oneself about the amount of exercise one is getting when one has a fitness tracker. It can also be encouraging because one can see what has been achieved. One can also see a progression. I have a running watch. I wear it all the time and it tracks my steps. I rationalize my low step days by reminding myself of my high step days when I run. But it still nags me. I don't like seeing the low step days. A fitness tracker is just a performance enhancing tool, but only if you actually use it. It's not a silver bullet. The problem is not with the fitness tracker, but with expectations.

In my state, 50% of the state budget funds education -- my county spends about a billion a year on education, the county next door about a 1.8 billion. In my region of the country, many elected officials are chosen during primaries -- uncontested in general election. Very view people vote in primaries (about 14% of active voters). About 75% of those voting have no school age children (55+). Hence, education is not really a priority of most of those elected to office and their views on education are largely shaped by the views of people that haven't been in a classroom for 30 or 40 years. Voting does in fact matter -- politicians win elections by catering to the concerns and aspirations of those that choose to vote (and people with children have vastly different concerns and aspirations than senior citizens). So sure people can complain all they want, but what does it mean when someone complains and takes no action to address the issue about which they complain? So I'm not particularly sympathetic to complaints from people who don't bother to vote. I do have school age children, so when thousands of other people with school age children don't bother to vote it has an adverse effect on me and my children. Should I be pissed at the politician that focuses on the vested interests of those that voted or the folks that stayed home? The politician is doing his job, even if I don't like what he or she is doing. So I think I will direct my ire at those that stayed home.

What ever happened to geometry proofs? Or showing how some mangled sine, cosine, tangent expression was equivalent to some other expression? Or solving virtually any math problem past 3rd grade? What ever happened to writing an essay (I was awful at that). Sure there was plenty of stuff that was rote memorization, but there was plenty of stuff that wasn't. I was in high school a long time ago, but you don't need programming to teach problem solving and process thinking unless some well meaning idiot removed all that stuff.

In my opinion, the fundamental problem is that we have an education system which creates huge incentives to cheat. One's test scores can determine whether college is affordable or not (or whether you will be in debt the rest of your life). Test scores can determine whether one is selected or rejected by one's preferred college. When one looks at the problem with respect to economics, the demand is ever increasing, but the supply, at least for the most preferred colleges and universities, is effectively flat. In essence, one's life and potential is reduced to a handful of numbers that seemingly determine one's future -- relying on one's abilities alone is for some too great a risk. I don't subscribe to the particular notion, but clearly some aspirations are made much more achievable by attending certain schools or encountering certain opportunities (e.g., jobs, gates, and joy all had unprecedented access to computers as teenagers, the beetles spent a year playing gigs every week in Hamburg). So when cheating reaches epidemic proportions, weak or absent morals are not solely to blame. The fact that so many find themselves in an environment where failure is too much to bear and where assessment mechanisms are designed first and foremost to be inexpensive explains much of the problem. Collegiate and professional athletics exhibit similar issues. In the end, when we create a system that incentivizes cheating, many of those that are honest and have true merit will be passed over, for in the cheating arms race, the clever cheater probably has the advantage.

NASA funding has always been political. At one point it was mostly about earth based science versus space science versus crewed space exploration, but it is also a hearts and minds sort of thing as well. NASA has not done so well on the hearts and mind part since the 60's. Then again, the science community was dead set against Hubble, but hey Hubble was great so now everybody is a fan. NASA got into the climate change debate and they complain about it being political. What did they expect? Climate change is political because not only are there limited funds to throw around but there are all kinds of winners and losers.

NASA probably looked at climate change as a good source of funding, perhaps a great source of funding, when other sources were drying up. It's not about being relevant; it's about being funded. Whether you are climate change promoter or denier it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that NASA has a vested interest in the outcome of their research -- future funding depends on that outcome, which totally corrupts the scientific process. In any case, going big into climate change paints a big bulls eye on the agency.

Thinking science and research is above politics is total bullshit.

Have you ever tried to have a meaningful conversation with an ant, or an ameba for that matter? I'm not an ant nor an ameba, but when the creator of the universe is talking to me or anyone else for that matter, the creator is operating under certain limitations--the most important of which is that I need to survive the conversation. So if one ant tells another ant God talked to him, the other ant is gonna ask how. And the answer will be, "in kind of an ant like way". At which point a skeptical ant will be absolutely certain his buddy is one antenna short of a pair. So what is the turing test equivalent (have you noticed how sophisticated robo calls are getting) for proving God has talked to someone? God talked to Gideon and he went to some lengths to make sure he wasn't stark raving mad -- just because someone just got around to making tools out of iron doesn't mean they're an idiot.

In any case, I wonder if our experiences with AI will be more like parent and child or like Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.

Many people have stuff they would like to remain hidden, the vast majority of which is not illegal, but it may be immoral, unethical, dodgy, or simply something that others may object to. It may be something that is long past. Nonetheless, many, perhaps all, can find themselves the targets of extortion because that information is now available to someone. Do we really want our political leaders and appointees or CEO's or soccer moms at risk of extortion by "well meaning" bureaucrats. Will our leaders do the right thing if it has the potential to threaten them or someone they care about personally? Petreaus comes to mind. Unbridled data collection by law enforcement is a greater risk to our freedom than terrorism ever will be. What would Andy Wiener have done to protect his reputation given that he already appeared to have a few character flaws? Or what would law enforcement do to protect an asset? Would Wiener's accusers find their reputations at risk if they chose to go public? Terrorism is about undermining the credibility of the government. Protecting the credibility of the government is often at odds with protecting freedom.

Diversity is kind of like zen; if you strive for it you will never obtain it. Instead if you don't seek it, but simply ignore all those things that don't matter you end up with, surprise, diversity. Of course, we sometimes don't know what matters. Nobody with a two functioning neurons says, however, to himself, "what I need is a team of young white males." Ok someone might think of a reason why that might be useful, but that's beside the point. You have a mission; you build a team to the best of you abilities to accomplish that mission. A lot of times we sacrifice the mission for other things: friendships, comfort, familiarity, and so on. Sometimes the population you have to select from is not all that diverse. That's someone else's problem. If you seek diversity, you will never find it.

And this is so much different than getting killed climbing Mt. Everest. Or a solo crossing of the Pacific. People do some amazing stuff and sometimes they die doing it or bankrupt companies as a result. Some people have a bias for action and they make up all kinds of crazy rationalizations to defend their decisions and commitment to a path that many think is just nuts (look up the state of long term expectation in Keynes' General Theory). What kind of people would we be if we weren't allow to do stupid shit and the guy making that decision only crosses the street at crosswalks and only when the sign says walk? People die on roller coasters; people drown in swimming pools. Safety and freedom often conflict with one another (see quote at the beginning of brave new world about utopias).

I think many organizations operate this way, but that doesn't make the behavior any less dysfunctional. The damages resulting from mistakes, incompetence (willful or otherwise), negligence, and so on are greatly magnified by moral failings (e.g., arrogance, cowardice, etc). The larger point is that we can do far better and should expect far better regardless of our political stripes. Basing one's standard of excellence on the other guy often amounts to having no standard at all because the competition is truly dreadful. Perhaps I am destined to live a life of disappointment, but I expect better.

Incompetence happens, but arrogance, cowardice, and an overwhelming desire to escape blame transforms simple incompetence into an epic failure. Poll everyone involved in healthcare.gov from the lowest to highest and few will admit any personal responsibility. Some will confess helplessness, just following orders. Some will point fingers at others, the "real" culprits. Some will just say that software is hard, normal people just don't understand. It is in our nature to reach beyond our grasp and that aspect of our character is noble and inspiring. Perhaps, deceit and treachery are also in our nature, but that aspect of our character is anything but noble and to be shunned. Simple honesty and humility can contain a great deal of the damage that incompetence would otherwise create.

What I see in this administration is a epic combination of hubris and incompetence that has left us with a president that has checked out because he is disappointed with us as a people and a nation. I honestly believe the president thinks we have failed him. Is Healthcare.gov just another testament to our failure as a people in the mind of President Obama?