Top
Best
New

Posted by rpgbr 1 day ago

Tacky men with ridiculous glasses want you to wear them too(manualdousuario.net)
119 points | 160 commentspage 3
layer8 1 day ago|
Zuckerberg looks like Woody Allen in that photo. :)
type0 1 day ago|
and equally creepy
doublerabbit 1 day ago||
As someone who wears glasses, I hate glasses. Yet these wears are never designed for those with glasses so you have to buy add ons to ensure you can see out these glasses.

To have eyesight without glasses would be bliss, minus laser surgery.

hdndjsbbs 1 day ago|
Agreed, I can't even remember to wear my prescription eyeglasses that help me see and not get a headache. No chance I'm going to wear worse, heavier, more expensive glasses so I can take pictures and have AI talk to me 24/7.

I guess I'll move to a cabin in the woods.

dools 1 day ago||
The new Google ones don't look too bad.
rpgbr 1 day ago||
Why this post was flagged?
penguin_booze 20 hours ago|
Clearly, someone was offended.
arjie 1 day ago||
My wife wore Meta glasses (we borrowed a pair from a friend) on a visit to the Vancouver aquarium and they were frankly amazing. You could just hit a button and say something like “what’s that orange fish in the back?” and it just tells you and then you can read stuff off the plate or get more information if you need.

I get that this kind of dunk polemic is popular among a certain crowd but it’s more incantatory than persuasive. For the rest of us who don’t particularly dress stylishly or whatever I guess it’s fine. I can be tacky. Not the greatest sin.

milkshakes 1 day ago|
you can already do this with your phone without casually and needlessly invading the privacy of everyone around you
AgentME 1 day ago|||
Is the phone's camera more privacy-preserving than the glasses's camera?
frizlab 1 day ago||
Yes, obviously? Holding a phone to film someone is obvious, having glasses that film is just having glasses…
bloody-crow 1 day ago||||
What kind of privacy are people supposed to expect in a public place like an aquarium?
arjie 1 day ago|||
Yes, and now I can do it with my glasses without casually and needlessly invading the privacy of everyone around me - except the fish and I’m not that convinced by an argument for fish privacy.
montag 1 day ago||
I agree that VR goggles hit a ceiling due to simple inconvenience. Whether smart glasses will suffer the same fate is a very interesting question. But the article would be much more effective without the cheap “tech bro” ridicule. Ultimately, after calling every product ugly, the analysis put forward by this author comes down to “short battery life and privacy concerns”.
rpgbr 1 day ago|
No, it wouldn’t.
needSomeCoffee 1 day ago||
I read in another thread on another site that the Snapchat SPECs were targeted at developers. If not are they going to market with what Evan is attempting to wear at over $2K ?? Insights appreciated, NSC.
BeetleB 1 day ago||
> sold a few million camera glasses for pervs

I stopped reading.

If you want to convince people, try to meet them where they're at.

tracerbulletx 1 day ago||
Ya.. if they can't admit they're fantastic for cycling or other activities where you want hands free access to some of your phones capabilities and don't want your ears obscured, then they aren't being intellectually honest in the argument. I think that's what most people actually get them for.
mrkpdl 1 day ago|||
> sold a few million camera glasses for pervs

I think that’s a reasonable characterisation of what people think of these devices.

Even if not strictly for perving it’s still seriously uncool to go around pointing a camera at people 100% of the time. So maybe ‘glasses for inconsiderate people who are sometimes also pervs’ is a better description?

BeetleB 1 day ago||
> I think that’s a reasonable characterisation of what people think of these devices.

It's not a reasonable characterization of the people that wear these devices, and that's what the sentence is implying.

> Even if not strictly for perving it’s still seriously uncool to go around pointing a camera at people 100% of the time.

Isn't it great, then, that these glasses don't do that?

Years ago I lived in a country where your type of comment is precisely what much of society said about smartphones. Taking one out in a social event brought a lot of angry stares.

Welcome to that demographic.

mrkpdl 1 day ago|||
> Isn't it great, then, that these glasses don't do that?

As long as there’s a lens on them the perception remains. Ala panopticon. Particularly the idea that not knowing when you are being watched means you must assume you are being watched all the time. In the case of your glasses this maps 1 to 1. Your camera is there, it is pointing forwards at all times. We do not know what you are or are not filming.

Regarding your smart phone analogy. Which seems to make the point that you shouldn’t argue against the negative aspects of something that may later become popular, I have a story too. Before smart phones were a thing, my school attempted to ban the ‘camera phone’. Which was a pretty reasonable thing to do in that context and at that time. History shows that this was a good idea, even if the levee broke later with the smart phone which has been an absolute negative in school hours.

bigfishrunning 1 day ago||||
> Isn't it great, then, that these glasses don't do that?

Are the cameras somehow removable? Is there an obvious lens cap? If not, then everyone in your field of view is at the business end of a camera lens all of the time, and might as well be filming.

Even if I trust the wearer of these glasses to not be constantly recording, I certainly don't trust the manufacturer of them.

delis-thumbs-7e 1 day ago|||
What country is that, sounds amazing?
rpgbr 1 day ago||
I wasn’t trying to convincing anyone anything. But that these glasses with cameras are pretty popular among pervs is a fact.
PaulHoule 1 day ago|
I think passthrough has no future. VR games are fun, immersive applications are real, AR adds a dimension to that but without the immersive applications tech bros will keep failing at this one.
nostrademons 1 day ago||
VR is for games, AR is for businesses.

I've seen legit-useful AR apps for doctors/surgeons, dentists, firefighters, law enforcement, warehouse workers, etc. Basically anything where you need to be out in the real world doing something that would benefit from having situational-awareness of other non-visual conditions. This is a pretty wide swath of professions, with a lot of potential to save lives. Just having a patient's vital signs projected while a surgeon operates could prevent many deaths on the operating table, along with lots of fuck-ups like leaving a scalpel behind in the patient.

mrkpdl 1 day ago|||
I did quite a bit of work in VR about a decade ago. The VR vs AR delineation was a constant conversation back then too. In meetings, at the bar, and so on: “This VR sure isn’t great but just you wait, AR will be the good one”…

But in reality it’s splitting hairs. Similar to discussing which tone pot values are better for your Stratocaster. Most people just don’t care, nor should they! “Stop trying to make fetch happen” as they say.

miladyincontrol 1 day ago|||
I’m inclined to believe in a future a bit less binary and more MR in general. Devices that can handle a variety of experiences from 1% augmented to 100% virtual.
malfist 1 day ago||
Well as long as we're all stating opionins at each other, I think bikes with 650b tires are the future
bigfishrunning 1 day ago||
In the future, all cars will have fins
dylan604 1 day ago||
> AR adds

what really worries me would be AR ads

marssaxman 1 day ago||
If AR glasses could run an adblocker for the real world, that might convince me to buy a pair.
VTimofeenko 1 day ago||
I'd pay top dollar for an adblocker that would replace ads with "They Live" references
More comments...