Draw a banana on a piece of paper. Chances are in doing so you subconsciously eliminated the dimension of the banana that is 'non curvy' / 'not really varying as much'. You've mentally done a form of PCA, and eliminated the least interesting dimension in reducing it to 2 dimensions instead of 3.
It is a means of defining a new coordinate system that is ordered by dimensions of decreasing variance.
He was an extraordinary editor. With a creative and talented technical team bubbling up myriad product/software concepts and features, he was able to dictate a highly focused direction based on great instinct, and then sell the hell out of it that focused vision both inside and outside. It's remarkable how few products Apple makes to this day.
While a lot of comments revolve around the efficacy of accurately monitoring for T1/2 diabetes and the past noninvasive trials and tribulations thereof, consider that the market for such a product is very limited by Apple's measure (10's of millions for an addressable market, versus billions for phones/watches). It seems much more interesting if they were chasing a general metabolic health or pre-diabetic application where the annoyance and lethargy of the FDA/medical community can be skipped entirely.
People that think ML/AI isn't statistics typically haven't studied statistics, or have a marketing agenda. I can tolerate the latter as a fact of life. But the former ... there is often a disturbing lack of statistical understanding in "ML/AI" practitioners at the ground level, even though the vast majority of their tooling is built on basic multivariate statistics. It's rather inevitable give the sudden sex-appeal of the field, but will lead to an 'AI winter' as those folks over promise and under-deliver. Computational statistics, statistical learning, machine learning, pick your term certainly continues to progress as computational horsepower improves. But as another commenter noted, physicists/chemists still self-identify with quantum mechanics even though the computational methods/approximations for molecular dynamics continue to rapidly improve.
A CTO of a 5 person operation doesn't remotely have the scope/role of the CTO of a hundred let-alone thousand person operation. Ditto for the CEO. But I don't see how it's possible or meaningful to prevent people from declaring themselves a "king of a kingdom", no matter how small. I think this comes out in the wash - anyone looking at a resume of someone that called themselves the CTO of a 5 person company is going to assume they were capable of performing to the level of a basic manager in a large org, so does it do any harm in the end?
It is a means of defining a new coordinate system that is ordered by dimensions of decreasing variance.