The problem is that different unemployment statistics measure different things, and the headline number often gets interpreted as "everyone who wants a job but doesn't have one"
We seem to have gotten very good at building marketplaces for standardized things and surprisingly bad at matching people when competence is hard to measure in advance
I think the thing is it’s no easier to hire someone to do a job you need done outside of work (at least the first time you need that job done) than it is to hire someone for a job at your workplace.
Genuinely qualified candidates are hard to find, nearly half of candidates are worse than average, and there are still skilled bullshitters aplenty.
Oh, and people who are good still cost real money.
Maybe social forces as well. I don't have the same 'local trust networks' that my parents did for finding someone nearby to do something--probably because I spend most of my time online. And I had more confidence in what I found in the paper Yellow Pages that got delivered to my door than I do in what is presented in an online search, say, for local contractors.
A chain of trust - aka a local village, is not always just the historic medieval village. Often it is just a experience value: I know that guy, i trust his/her judgement when it comes to "topic".
So when s/he recommends me a plumber, i know i can trust that guy..
So a chain of trust naturally accumulates over a lifespan- and by the time you will be as old as your dad was at point of reference, you actually would have a chain.
Depending of course on the quality of acquaintances. As kid, all you have is your parents and relatives. Some with wild swings. We all had that story telling grandpa whose tall tales we proudly propagated.
Sorry, local village- what was i thinking. Its a chain of entitys (mostly persons) who using there expertise, chain other entities to the chain and thus extend thrust to that entity. A village can hold many chains, but the trust regarding a topic, may only be given to certain parts of those chain networks.
People who know about and use continuous glucose monitors already understand what "wearable" means in this context. The devices are designed to be installed by the user at home, not by a specialist.
You're more likely to get a reaction to the adhesive that holds the device on your skin than the sensor filament itself.
Yeah, not being part of that market. I was viewing the headline more like an Apple Watch. That seems like the click bait of the headline, it sounds like a new feature that will be in a watch or something.
I've worn one, you forget it's there fairly quickly. It really isn't a big deal. I wore it for a month (2 of them @ 2weeks each) and it wasn't a big deal at all. Ijust wanted to watch how my eating affected my glucose in almost real time.
A device like this only really changes outcomes if people can actually afford to wear one continuously, not just during periods when they're already at higher risk
Sorry about your friend. This kind of news hits very differently when you know someone who might have benefited from it. Hopefully continuous ketone monitoring becomes as ordinary and accessible as CGMs are becoming.
reply