I'm not a fan. If I get a new hub, the last thing I want to do is unscrew every light switch to find the picture on it to scan and if I buy a house with pre-existing hardware I don't want to rely on the last owner having taken pictures associated with every switch and left it for me.
OOB pairing could have rolling keys, but that's more expensive. In general the problem is difficult, every solution has a nasty caveat, be it taking over during installation or what your described.
A large percentage of Dexcom developers have had their lives impacted by Diabetes in some way. This and plain old competition are the biggest drivers in their features and usability in my experience. You have to keep in mind like most businesses they have a long feature pipeline in development that is not public knowledge. If you release a feature and see it mirrored by someone else shortly after it's as likely that you both thought of it, and you just beat them to it than it is that they were inspired by you. Especially when one of you has a much shorter time to market thanks to no FDA oversight.
I’m sure the Dexcom developers are good people. And just look at their stock price — things are going well for them since they released the G6, which, well, actually works most of the time!
Their software is still doing trivial things badly and they deserve to feel ashamed and embarrassed that Nightscout could relay an integer value over the Internet to a smartphone years sooner than they could.
I’m very thankful for Dexcom. They’ve done great things for T1D management. They could do much, much better. They are only scratching the surface of what a CGM system should do, never mind a closed-loop system of which they will be an integral part, and dare I say, should be in the drivers seat to a dumb-pump following their orders.
> Especially when one of you has a much shorter time to market thanks to no FDA oversight.
They're fundamentally different markets, though. The device manufacturer is out to turn a profit on hardware, the open source programmer is out to improve their own individual experience.
Why should the second individual be subject to FDA oversight? I mean, I'm glad the FDA exists, but their function is to regulate the overall market -- not make it harder for me to make my _own_ healthcare decisions.
> Why should the second individual be subject to FDA oversight? I mean, I'm glad the FDA exists, but their function is to regulate the overall market -- not make it harder for me to make my _own_ healthcare decisions.
Regulatory capture from the ADA..
Yes, the FDA does make it harder/impossible to treat yourself. You are an idiot as far as they are concerned. And the doctor is the holy grail of decisions. And even how they come to a decision is 'holy' knowledge.
I should be able to go down to a drug store and buy most drugs (ideally all, but another story) and administer them to myself. I should be able to treat myself. But all that's locked away behind one of the biggest paywalls we have in this country.
> Yes, the FDA does make it harder/impossible to treat yourself. You are an idiot as far as they are concerned.
FWIW, the FDA doesn't even think about the end-consumer. They're the government's labelling-standards body. They just care that:
1. if you sell a product labelled 'X' (e.g. "milk", or "ibuprofen"), then it should contain only the ingredients—and the concentrations of such—listed in The Big FDA Book of What Products Labelled 'X' Contain. (This covers both the "no salmonella" cases, the "you can't call Cheez Whiz 'cheese'" cases, and the "beef withdrawn from the market for containing more iodine than beef usually contains" cases.)
2. if you make up a new product 'X'—really, a new product label 'X'—then "FDA approval" just means convincing them to add a page to their Big Book. You have to write that page: you must claim all the expected effects of consuming an 'X', and exhaustively list all potential side-effects of consuming an 'X'. Then, you must submit evidence that proves to their satisfaction that your reference-product for the label 'X' has all of those effects you listed; and that it has no other side-effects than the ones you listed.
Food manufacturers usually just have to deal with #1. Drug manufacturers have to deal with #2 and then #1. (Or just #1 if they're making existing drugs.)
The FDA was, for most of its life, just about #1: enforcing product integrity. They also did #2, but #2 wasn't a big deal—getting approval from the FDA for a new drug wasn't supposed to be hard or even expensive, as long as your drug really did something. It could even have disastrous side-effects. If you thought it was still marketable despite those, then you could just tell the FDA about them and they'll approve it. (See: all chemo drugs.) Just give the FDA a proven-accurate page for their Big Book, and they're happy.
But then the pages of the FDA's Big Book began to get taken as truth by various other standards bodies, that regulate what can or cannot be sold (sold at all, or sold over-the-counter, etc.)
And, because of that, manufacturers wanted their page in the Big Book to list great effects and few side-effects. Because then the barriers between them and their market are lower.
And what this means, is that that manufacturers started lying to the FDA, submitting a page describing what they wish the product was like, rather than what it is like. That's the only reason the FDA ever "does not approve" (note: not "rejects", just "does not approve") of a new label—the manufacturer can't prove their claims. I.e., the label isn't true.
Thus began the adversarial and expensive relationship between modern pharma companies and the FDA: the pharma companies want to make everything OTC and want to make a million claims about what each drug does; and the FDA just stands there, shakes its head, and tells them to come back with numbers proving their claims. And then the pharma companies burn through millions/billions of dollars trying to "prove" things that they know aren't true. Until they either eventually fail and just register a realistic monograph; or, rarely, they succeed (due to p-hacking) and end up with a drug that now is being taken by all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.
Hate the ADA, or the DEA, or any number of other groups that use the FDA's Big Book, but don't hate the FDA themselves. All they're doing is taking a set of words (like "milk" or "ibuprofen"), defining them precisely, and then requiring companies that use those words in their marketing, stick to the definitions those words have in their Big Book.
In the 80's I made a database routine to do just this - take a zip and turn it into a city - and as well, to go the other direction. I sold it to another software company for a rather fat amount of cash, and they used it to make their production-line data entry 80% faster. In the cases where it failed and produced wrong results, it was cheaper for them to ship me the dud records for correction in the database than it was to go back to the old way.
Yet still, today, its a very rarely encountered technique. I wonder if so much has changed in the Zip+4 world to make it an efficiency sink...
I wouldn't personally trust whatever service provides this lookup to be 100% accurate, especially because there's so many weird edge cases with addresses. If the user gets it wrong, at least it's their fault and not mine.
How are you liking DevonThink? It’s one of those bits of software I think about trying out from time to time but getting started with it looks like a bit of a time investment.
Yes. You’d have to invest some time to get used to it, but I’ll think it’s worth it. Especially on macOS I don’t see many good options. That said I can’t wait for them to release an major update (v3).
