The Spiked artcle is dominated by impassioned rhetoric and lacks dull science.
He seeks to persuade with bombast:
All you really need to know about furin cleavage sites is that SARS-CoV-2 is the first and only SARS-like virus, out of many hundreds that have been described, ever to show up with a furin cleavage site in its spike gene. Sure enough, it’s an insertion, not a mutation, and it’s at the S1/S2 junction.
and ignores dull studies:
*Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses*
The spike protein is a focused target of COVID-19, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. A 12-nt insertion at S1/S2 in the spike coding sequence yields a furin cleavage site, which raised controversy views on origin of the virus. Here we analyzed the phylogenetic relationships of coronavirus spike proteins and mapped furin recognition motif on the tree. Furin cleavage sites occurred independently for multiple times in the evolution of the coronavirus family, supporting the natural occurring hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.
Like many people he has studied science. As the twig was bent so he bends his view of science towards a pro fracking, Euroskeptic, Conservative House of Lords, investment banker PoV.
Not just taking into account the furin cleavage site issue, but there is every incentive for the scientific community and those in power to blame this on the wet market over the lab leak.
The American sick care system is based around and incentivized to keep you a customer for life. I recommend people find preventative health and longevity specializing medical providers - they prioritize actual health and wellness.
If you are actually interested in learning about Musk, I would suggest Walter Isaacson's biography. The man is not pleasant, but he is highly capable of building significant things (which he has proven over and over again).
I agree, but they are very different companies and industries
I think Elon has pushed things ahead of where they would be with Tesla and SpaceX, but is shown complete incompetence with Twitter
A person can be good at, and doing good, with some things, while also being a complete idiot about other things. His political commentary and ideology are definitely hurting him and his reputation, undermining the good work he had done elsewhere. I am no longer a fan
In order for life to appear on Earth, a lot of things had to go right and in a specific order. Earth got lucky, it hit the 1 in whateverillion jackpot lottery.
I think the same about Elon. His luck ran out with Twitter. He's peaked and on the downward slope now. He's not some mastermind. He's not some uber-businessman.
Like I guess if somebody creates a startup and sells it can be luck.
Musk did that and earned 20m. Ok lets claim luck, internet was crazy. Then he exited his next one with 100M. Well again lucky, its just internet stuff I guess.
Then he invested that in 2 companies, both in capital intensive technology industries that had a long history of failure where the US was not at all world leading. Now both companies are being valued over 100 billion $.
Like to claim that all of this is luck is just a claim that doesn't make any fucking sense. Maybe if both of the 2 companies had continue to exit and were just kind of there and hanging on, maybe then you could argue that somehow that is luck.
But leading two companies like Tesla/SpaceX at the same time revolutionizing the industry they are in. Common.
Twitter is different in that he bought a company that most people thought was totally overvalued and not profitable for far to much money when the value was very high and he did it for political reasons. That was of course stupid but it doesn't at all prove that he was just lucky up to this point.
> I think the same about Elon. His luck ran out with Twitter.
Why would that be? Because some advertisers pulled their ads? That's not what he's trying to do. He wants Twitter - actually X now - to be the next PayPal, the Western counterpart to WeChat that folks can use to accomplish pretty much anything. The whole free speech angle is very much in service to that: no one is going to be financially dependent on a platform that can ban you for life simply because influential people did not like what you said in the platform's BBS-like "town square".
> The whole free speech angle is very much in service of that: no one is going to be financially dependent on a platform that can ban you for life simply because influential people did not like what you said in the platform's BBS-like "town square".
You mean like wechat? Also didn't Musk not (personally) ban people he didn't like (the private jet guy comes to mind, but also the journalists who reported on it)? Does he not count as "influential people"?
> to be the next PayPal, the Western counterpart to WeChat that folks can use to accomplish pretty much anything
PayPal is not anything like an all-in-one app like WeChat, and basically every platform from Apple Messages to Facebook Messenger to Snapchat has allowed users to send money, for years. And a few of those apps have attempted to be all in one apps, with years of a head start in that space.
No one is going to be financially dependent on a platform that can ban you for life simply because influential people did not like what you said in the platform's BBS-like "town square".
Exactly, which is why it will be a cold day in Hell before I deposit money with any company run by Musk. "Free speech as long as you agree with me" doesn't work for me.
From Dr. Robert Lustig in his book, Metabolical (highly recommended):
"Michael Pollan (full disclosure, he’s a friend), in his now-famous New York Times Magazine article, espoused seven simple words: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Three separate clauses, but I think that each clause is misleading. Eat food doesn’t take into account that some people may do better on a low-fat diet, while others may do better on a high-fat diet. Not too much doesn’t say how you are supposed to moderate that, as it doesn’t take into account food addiction or what generates satiety. And mostly plants doesn’t take into account that Coke, French fries, and Doritos are all plant-based. If you buy your organic, all-natural, GMO-free tortilla chips at Whole Foods, you’re still stuffing your liver and starving your gut—you’re just paying more for the privilege."
> doesn’t take into account that Coke, French fries, and Doritos are all plant-based
By the very definition Pollan gives, none of those are food, they are lab concoctions that have been invented in the last few generations. Like the advice given about McDonalds by all the doctors and nutritionists in Super Size Me, a healthy person should never eat them.
When Pollan says "eat food", he means "real" things that exist naturally. [Note 1]
He also introduces the "grandma test" which is to say you shouldn't eat anything your grandma wouldn't recognize as food. A glass of black fizzy liquid sugar? no. Drink water.
[Note 1] I often think about this like the periodic table. Many of the elements that have been on the table forever (low atomic numbers) can be found just lying around on the ground (Gold, Copper, etc.). They are "real".
Almost all the ones added in the last few decades (nihonium, moscovium, tennessine) (high atomic numbers) never exist naturally and must be concocted in a lab under extremely specific circumstances. Often they only exist for a fraction of a second. They are "fake".
Can you find an Apple, spinach, meat or fish out in nature? Yes - that's "real" food.
Can you find Doritos or coke out in nature? No - that's not food.
This feels like an overly complex response to a statement that's intentionally simple though.
The whole point of Pollan's statement is to have simple guidelines that ignore optimizations in favor of directionally good flexibility, which makes me feel like Lustig either misses Pollan's point, or just believes in a completely different philosophy.
Any good argument that anyone can think of for a scenario where smart eyewear will not be as ubiquitous as smart phones eventually? I understand the privacy argument, but that is not going to be enough. The ability to think or blink in a certain way and capture anything you see is too powerful a tool, alongside the augmented reality that is coming.
I was one of the ridiculous-looking people who had a Google Glass when it came out. It was clunky, and lasted a very short time, and your face would get hot, and it had no real AR interaction with the real world.
But. If you could squint at the rough edges, and project forward what this could be like with more advanced tech, it was a no-brainer for me that it will be a far superior form factor for what we do with the phone. For 2 weeks, I tried hard NOT using a phone and just using it. While it was difficult (mostly because I couldn't have a conversation with anyone that didn't begin with them asking what was on my head), when I went back to the phone I so strongly noticed how much I was craning my neck, how annoying it was to interact with tech like that, and it kinda felt terrible.
Wow dang, they really should make this more obvious. If I bought one and discovered that (despite being able to record and stream video) it had no display, I would be pissed.
To be fair the second sentence in the short top description is about staying connected with calls and messages. I don't think many people's first assumption (without any other context/knowing more) would be that that means having them read out.
> Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages and listen to your favourite tracks through built-in speakers.
Which makes it seem pretty clear they're talking about stuff you can do because of the speakers.
Then later:
> No more stopping to answer your phone. Also, make calls and send messages on WhatsApp, Messenger and SMS, completely hands-free – simply by using your voice.
The first part seems intentionally ambiguously worded to be interpreted as:
> (Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages) and (listen to your favourite tracks through built-in speakers)
vs:
> (Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages and listen to your favourite tracks) through built-in speakers
So it's not clear from that wording that there isn't a display, or that the messages are read aloud. An unambiguous wording would be:
> listen to your favourite tracks and stay connected with hands-free calls and messages through built-in speakers
As, well, the below statement is true whether there is a screen or not, and also doesn't specify that the messages are read aloud:
> No more stopping to answer your phone. Also, make calls and send messages on WhatsApp, Messenger and SMS, completely hands-free – simply by using your voice
That plus the image of the screen floating next to the glasses definitely make it seem like marketing is trying to trick people into thinking there's a display without explicitly claiming it
> Which makes it seem pretty clear they're talking about stuff you can do because of the speakers.
That's true. But it's not excluding display stuff.
It's along the lines of some product having multiple features, and some marketing point only talking about the advantages of the first feature. People would expect further marketing points to address the other features, and/or not even realise they'd not seen the other ("assumed to be present") features mentioned later on.
> That's true. But it's not excluding display stuff.
How many product landing pages talk about what you cannot do with the product or what it doesn't include? That'd be a very strange landing page for a product...
I think you're technically correct, it definitely is unusual to talk about what you cannot do.
However, do you really think the marketing team didn't get together and recognize the major limitation of not having a display, and carefully craft the marketing so as to minimize that?
> However, do you really think the marketing team didn't get together and recognize the major limitation of not having a display, and carefully craft the marketing so as to minimize that?
Probably a bunch of people wished it was Google Glass 2.0 because it'd make the marketing people jobs easier/more interesting, but I don't think they'd craft the message to trick people, it'll impact the amount of returns and they'll probably lose more handling that than people not buying it because it doesn't have a screen.
> > Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages and listen to your favourite tracks through built-in speakers.
> Which makes it seem pretty clear they're talking about stuff you can do because of the speakers.
I don't agree at all (I wasn't not quoting to hide anything, I was just typing from mobile with a crappy connection on a train) - that's not clear to me - but ok.
Meta is all about VR. VR means a display. Anyone would assume "meta glasses" are AR glasses. This is just a desperate attempt to boost the meta hype because they have made no progress on actual VR products.
They are also called "smart glasses", but they are just headphones and a camera. Nobody calls their bluetooth headphones "smart".
"To conclude, it’s worth noting that, at least for a time, product managers at Facebook — Russ’ job before starting DocSend — were required to read Snow Crash as part of their internal training."[0]
You can't imagine police departments that buy stingray devices and spy illegally with them to also pay for surveillance data? Anyway for real time tracking, police stations can likely get the feds involved which get that info from your telco, who are best buddies with the federal government.
Yeah... but I am not american, but from a tiny european country. Police makes some requests for data after the fact every year, but as far as I know there are no deals between police and giant american corporations. I'm probably naive.
That's fair, we are on mostly American website after all!
I'm just traveling through France and saw on the news that a woman disappeared. They are trying to find her by triangulating the last location based on nearby cell towers of where she was last seen. So even giant European countries can't/don't use facebook/google to locate people.
I remember having similar thoughts about Google Glass despite never using it and never really wanting to use it.
I mean, the concept seemed amazing, but it seemed clear that it needed to be combined with vastly more AI capability. All of the things that people imagined it doing were basically impossible.
But now it seems like something much more powerful shouldn't be that far away.
I wonder if we will see an inversion of the clip-on sunglasses design but with corrective lenses.
Clip your prescription to a pair of sunglasses instead, or to your smart glasses.
You might have to clip them to the backside to get it all to work out. But in that case variations in lens shape will be less visible, because sunglasses.
These days, at least if you can afford designer, they use rare earth magnets and the frames are exactly the same shape.
Since most glasses only grind the back side of the lens, they fit pretty closely together.
Which is also why you wouldn't be able to reverse the position of the lenses without changing how they're ground (also thick lenses hidden behind the frame conceal just how bad your eyes are, which some people get self conscious about.
Point was, if you wear a pair of glasses that people require you to take off regularly, you still need to be able to see, and that means carrying two pair of glasses. Transitions lenses exist in large part because people can't be arsed to carry around two pair of glasses.
You're missing the point. Corrective lenses have thickness. For the frames that use magnets to add a sunglass layer, they only work because it can go on the outside, with the lens already set in the frame at the right distance from the eyes/lashes. It just wouldn't work in reverse, to take a sunglass lens at the right distance and snap something in behind it. You'd get oily lash streaks all over the corrective layer constantly.
It's even worse if you wear really thick glasses, because sometimes they even have to sit slightly proud of the frame in the front.
Your solution just isn't viable for this problem, as any longtime glasses wearer could easily tell you.
If that's not enough, there's a whole industry of people designing eyewear; you really think "What if you just added the corrective part inside the tinted part?" wouldn't have been done if it were viable?
Take a pair of glasses. Attach sunglasses to them. Move the bows from the glasses to the sunglasses. The geometry of the glasses or frames don’t matter, it’s whether there’s enough distance from the eye.
My glasses have almost always sat proud of the frames. And there’s plenty of distance behind them. (I’ve had sunglasses that brush my eyelashes though, when I was young and they were cheap, and that bugs the hell out of me).
> If that's not enough, there's a whole industry of people designing eyewear; you really think "What if you just added the corrective part inside the tinted part?" wouldn't have been done if it were viable?
First of all, that's an Appeal to Authority, and you know where you can stick that. Two, you think I'm trying to solve a very old problem, which means you missed the point.
Putting something on your face that vastly outsizes and outcosts your glasses is a brand new problem.
Scientists get eyepieces for microscopes with prescription lenses. That's not on your face. Skiers just buy goggles with prescription lenses, which cost almost as much as VR goggles. That's basically a luxury market, not a consumer market.
Also the whole fuckin' point is that none of these solutions (to people insisting you take your glasses off) work because a rounding error of people are going to carry two pair of glasses with them, and even the workaround is unwieldy. You're lost in the weeds talking about the physics of it, which aren't a problem and aren't the real problem.
What you actually said was:
> Clip your prescription to a pair of sunglasses instead, or to your smart glasses.
You might have to clip them to the backside to get it all to work out.
And what does "Move the bows from the glasses to the sunglasses" even mean? Bows?
You can't take a glasses frame that is designed to be worn at a normal distance from the eye and then clip something to the back side of it, between the original lens and your eye. There's not enough space to add a corrective lens back there.
Even if there were, it's still unfeasible, because the part you have to take off is the smart part or the tinted part not the prescription part.
Never mind that it's only a rounding error of people who are willing to carry around a clip-on layer either, because it requires nearly as much protection as a full pair of glasses to avoid breaking it.
Making the prescription part the clipping part is inane on every level. Nothing about it works.
I found google glass to be great. It had real world AR in directions. I used it several times in other cities to move about. I never really had any heat issues. I do wish we could have gotten a couple iterations, but that's Google for you.
That same ability might lead people to ban people wearing smart glasses from participating.
If we were having a party, we’d almost certainly not allow people to keep their smart glasses on because the complete lack of friction would mean certain individuals who are decently in the public eye would have to basically spend the whole evening just making sure there’s not even a suggestion of a still picture capturing something that may go wrong.
You will almost certainly be required to remove your smart glasses before entering any sort of medical institution, and even a building containing a medical institution would probably have you removing it on entering the building itself.
Thanks a lot for this viewpoint. This type of surveillance tech is extremely scary to me. I have no doubt a big enough minority will want to embrace it, without a moments thought to what the people around them might feel like.
But it's very comforting that in many places they will be outright banned.
I will do my best to get them forbidden in as many places as I can.
"Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse and other illegal activity"
In the 18-29 age range, 30% said yes.
I agree with your sentiments but we have already lost. You just have to enjoy what we have now because it won't last forever. Someday everyone's entire life will be filmed and watched over by AI. To me, that is absolutely obvious at this point. If that was not going to be the case we wouldn't be where we are now.
Why glasses? I’ve paid a lot of money not to have to wear glasses.
I might use some kind of camera attached to my head if it was something most people used. Would be nice to be able to capture moments instantly.
I haven’t seen a use-case for low quality augmented reality that would make me use glasses daily. Then again, I personally don’t find smart watches worth it and lots of people use those.
I think the Apple Vision kind of illustrates what it’d take for really compelling augmented reality. If it can replace my TV I might actually use it. But then they clearly don’t intend for you to use them outside. And I’m still not sure if it’s worth the discomfort of wearing tightly fitting glasses.
> Why glasses? I’ve paid a lot of money not to have to wear glasses.
Because it's the only socially acceptable way to point a camera at people without tipping them off.
That's one reason google glass didn't take off as well. When you show up at the party waving your camera around on record, people tend to find a way to distance themselves.
It means that either this line of product will ruin glasses (false positives of people assuming your thick frame glasses are a hidden camera) either people really aren't tipped off and we'll have a moral panic about private footages overflowing in the media.
I see a future in smart glasses, in particular for notifications, but they absolutely need to tip off people when the camera is pointed at them.
The tendency for people to be creeped out by your surveillance glasses.
If anyone around me wore these, I'd promptly tease them playfully about it, making it clear it's creepy.
I understand that there are folks like yourself that are comfortable with it, but most people are against others walking around and recording.
I hate that they are trying to hide the fact that the glasses are modified. Clearly they understand that the camera must be hidden for it to be socially acceptable.
Cops have to wear body cams that are recording continuously (or at least we hope they are). Dash cams are popular...even standard...in places where insurance fraud is rife. How long the hold out will be until wearing a headset recording device is considered normal rather than creepy?
I see your point, but dash cams are recording the road, which is not a place that most people consider private.
An always-present personal recording device is different. People enter and leave areas that others feel are private. In some cases, there are even laws protecting what can be recorded (two-party states in the U.S. for example).
If something like these glasses started to take off, I would expect public backlash and legislation that restricted or prevented its use in certain contexts, which would essentially make them useless (the point is that you wear them all the time).
Depends on the culture, really. Dash cams (& ring doorbells/private security cameras) are illegal in quite a few countries with strong privacy protections.
Even on a public street people have a right to privacy in my country, I couldn't just start taking pictures or video of someone without consent.
I think a single trip down Reddit's r/PublicFreakout should be enough to convince you that the ubiquity of cameras doesn't stop people from acting like assholes.
Thats a small minority of incidents. There are a lot more day to day behaviors that people do that are inconsiderate, and if there is a chance of you getting on video, being identified and losing your job, Im all for it. There is no immediate reward for acting good, and very little to no punishment for acting like an asshole.
>There are a lot more day to day behaviors that people do that are inconsiderate, and if there is a chance of you getting on video, being identified and losing your job, Im all for it.
Good thing you've never done anything in your life that could be construed as inconsiderate, so this wouldn't affect you.
Eyeballs are pretty optimal for getting data out of a computer and into a brain. I think professionals will continue to use a high-resolution large-format desktop monitor, but a high-resolution large-format display on a pair of glasses is unambiguously superior to a phone screen, no matter how much resolution they pack in or how much larger than a pocket they get.
What I wonder is where the keyboard is going. I have an imagination that can draw and abstract things with (I think?) about as much fidelity as my eyes can take in, but there's nothing that even comes close to that for getting that data out of my brain and into the computer. Not keyboards, not mice, not touchscreens or pen/tablet, not game controllers, not voice-to-text. Not my Leap Motion gesture sensor or Spacemouse, though those are interesting products. With lots and lots of training, I can get hundreds of WPM of text into a computer, with exotic, high-information-density syntax if required (text entry speed doesn't really seem to be the bottleneck for productive work, but that's beside the point IMO).
The optimal input mechanism is definitely not blinking, though I can imagine that eyeglasses with gaze tracking tech (and some training for "wink to click" or similar) may someday be of comparable or greater utility to a mouse pointer. But how close can we get to "think to text" or "think to image"?
I’ve been imagining the future will be smart glasses paired with mini pocket keyboards, like the bottom half of a blackberry. Or who knows maybe everyone will lean heavily into dictation.
I think there’s also a future where hand tracking gets so good you just type on a full sized floating keyboard. That’s seems to be apples approach with the Vision Pro.
> Or who knows maybe everyone will lean heavily into dictation.
Impractical, as lots of input is hard or even impossible to do with dictation; saying "next" or "go back" every time quickly becomes tiresome, and never mind things like games.
For pure text messages and the like there are loads of scenarios where you don't want to be talking out loud, for reasons of convenience, privacy, and not being a nuisance to others.
It's looks cool on Star Trek and all, but voice control will never be the main interface to computers. Absolutely great accessibility tool and like many accessibility tools useful for everyone from time to time. But the default for regular people? I'm not seeing that happening.
As someone who wears glasses, my argument was always that most people don't want to wear glasses all the time, even if they were adding no extra friction vs your regular sunglasses (weight, looks, cost).
But, I had the same argument for Apple watch - no one in my circle was wearing watches any more. However, that didn't prevent people to start wearing an Apple watch.
So, I can definitely see a future where people who don't wear glasses choose to wear smart glasses.
I do agree that I wouldn't have assumed that the watch is used that much but after it got its own esim and can be used instead of a phone, it can replace a device.
And for sports it's actually practical.
Glasses? I still think nope. It's still not a beauty thing
Cost and interface mostly. Also to some extent privacy issues.
Phones being $1000 is already an issue, and they're by default more robust. Glasses, assuming we can get them to a similar cost, are probably even more likely to be lost or broken. For comparison think of foldable smart phones, which exist, but are mostly seen as a trendy luxury item due to their durability issues.
The interface, I think is huge. Smart phones took off because apple figured out a good interface. People like to rip on them for just copying an idea that already existed and hadn't taken off, but they ignore that apple nailed the hell out of getting it so the average person could use it.
You need it to be clear, obvious, and responsive.
All the examples i've seen of these smart glasses (website isn't loading for me so I can't check this) are the sorts of things that nerdy people like me (typing on a cornish zen) would find fine, and will never be smooth enough for the average user, ESPECIALLY at current costs.
While things like the air pods pro have changed my opinion on the average user adopting tactile controls, I still think that voice activation and mostly reference-less tactile controls is NOT mass adoptable. And this is before we get into just the hassle of glasses (smudges and the like).
From what I can tell, these are basically just "headphones + camera" on your face. So it's not displaying anything, at which point this is like airpods with a camera. Is there a group of people who want that? Sure, this looks tailor made for luxury influences. Is that a use case for the average person? I don't think so.
Not a feature I like or endorse, but one that's clearly in the interest of both device vendors and much of the online advertising and commercial sector.
In a world in which credible attestations of interest and potential commercial value are difficult to assess without the manifest signals of a high street address and the visual assessments made possible by physical presence, owning a < 2 y.o. piece of $1,000 kit is a highly reliable market segmentation signal.
This is a key reason why websites (especially commercial ones, but also anything advertising-related) are on such a relentless treadmill of ever-escallating resource demand. Got to keep those undesireable old-cheap-Android and 15-year-old desktop plebes out somehow.
This comment may eventually seem as outdated as asking 'what's the point of Dropbox,’ but it seems we’re approaching the limits of human-computer interaction. It feels as if we’ve reached a point where technology, originally a 'tool' to serve humans, is beginning to erode essential aspects of our humanity, manipulating our core motivations. People may start to opt out, not necessarily due to a lack of useful features and functionalities, but because the overall cost to our humanity outweighs the benefits. This is something we’re gradually coming to realize more fully.
I kind of agree with your first part. For a while now, I've considered the possibility that a handheld device like an iPhone is actually pretty close to the ideal way humans actually want to interact with a computer. Even though it seems cool as an idea, I don't think people want their experience with a computer to be too immersive--handheld device might be the sweet spot.
I can't imagine willingly introducing any more "smart" devices into my life given the baggage "smart" comes with. We have to cede a little autonomy and privacy to unaccountable central authorities for every new "smart", cloud-enabled gimmick we buy into. I'd be happy to invest in tech that treats me like I own it, but that way of doing things is on its way out, at least for the average person.
No. Wearable AR tech is the future. The trend has been "get this device as out of my way, and integrate it into my life as much as possible." e.g: big iron -> desktops -> laptops -> smart phones enabling greater mobility and flexibility of use.
We're just starting to see the next state of it with wearable tech. Smart watches. Airpods. Many people have these. Many people wear them for extended periods because they're comfortable interfaces to the services they care about. A family member has a hearing aid that's connected to their phone's bluetooth. Comfortable enough to wear all day & discretely listen to phone audio whenever. I think that's the next step (obvious evolution from airpods). Glasses -> AR displays shortly after.
"Smart" glasses erode everyone's privacy unlike any other technology. Cameras and cell phones have to be held up to record. Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously, without anyone's consent. If that is not reason enough to object what more do you want, my fist in your face?
By the time I am close enough see that puny light you've already recorded me. It's an opt out mechanism, not opt in. Maybe if there was an unobtrusive way for me to prevent recording through a wearable, like a ROBOTS.TXT file, or a universal gesture (a middle finger, or a grimace) to indicate my desire to be erased from your recording, I would consider it. I would also want some assurance that my request is honored. Given how unlikely this all is, I am simply saying "nope" today.
It's fine in situations where consent is obtained in advance; e.g., events.
I should add that I take more pictures than the average person, and used to be a street photographer, so I have been in situations where people did not want their likeness captured. Also in countries where people objected to photography altogether on the grounds that it stole their spirit. I always had to make a decision with my trigger finger, so I was able to apply human oversight. My stance is informed by experience.
Try taking your phone out and start recording when talking to some random people on the street or in shop at cash register, or when talking to policeman etc. and see if none of them will start getting very annoyed or even aggressive - even if it's not (maybe) illegal people won't like it.
People are allowed to be annoyed. If you punch someone, or break/steal their property for recording, there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you. People record others all the time, there is this whole Karen phenomenon that is kinda hard not to know about..
Don't squander your right to record in public on something as mundane and personal as a civilian minding his own business. Record a crime, at least. Otherwise the law may change and you may lose that "right".
I don't like being recorded all the time when out in public or in stores or hospitals or other places or institutions. The thing that I find completly unacceptable is having the recording sent off to meta or google or somewhere to be analyzed and monetized without my consent. Not only do I not benefit from this I consider it a profound abuse of my privacy and autonamy. before all this invasive corporate surveillance being seen in public was a localized and ephemeral experience and privacy laws were adequate to cover this. This is no longer true. Not that I think this will happen any time soon (or ever) because, you know, money; and not enough people outraged about this or that feel safe enought to express thier outrage, but a simple fix would be that if I am not a consenting user of a corporate service like meta or google or ticktock or whatever then that service is not permited to retain or use that (personal) information in any way. So when the service recieves video it must remove or completely obsure any individuals image and audio from the video that are not current users of the service. Better yet and more feasible would be to just flag and delete the video, which puts the burden on the person making the video, where it belongs. Of course this would apply to any and all information conected to all non users of the service. To motivate compliance an automatic award of, let's say, $10,000 to an abused party would probably do the trick. If this sounds extream to you I just consider it a good start.
> there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you
There are, but they are extraordinarly unlikely. People push and shove each other all the time over minor insults and disagreements and almost never end up in front of a judge. Most cops would just say "you should have put the camera down when he asked you to, now stop wasting my time."
I didn't mean that this is ok to punch someone. My point is it will annoy a lot of people and some will eventually punch you. There are many legal things that if you do you are just asking yourself for a problem.
I also think in some countries it might be illegal to record someone either video or audio without explicitly telling or asking for permission. Even at the airport (at least in many I have been) it was not allowed to do video recording
There is a big difference between actively choosing to film, showing you are filming someone and a passive camera always on. The first one can be easily avoided, the second one not so much.
That is a technicality; I object on principle. I extrapolated current capabilities to underscore the argument, because more people will lifestream/lifecast the easier it gets. Tomorrow it may be a neural link.
Then what else have we got left in order to confront those very rude people that film you without your consent? It's pretty clear that the law is not up to the task.
The copy claims the glasses will complain audibly if you cover up the LED, but doesn’t say whether or not it stops recording. It’s also not clear how easily circumvented this is, but they’ve obviously considered the angle.
Nah, earbuds and phones could do audio recording just fine and for longer. Adding video does not make it "unlike any other", so this is rather a minor erosion on top.
> Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously
For a rather limited time duration and with a glowing light and with actually quite a bit of effort.
> without anyone's consent.
Why? You still need the same amount of consent as with any other camera.
Correct, and people do have expectations, albeit reduced, of privacy in public too. Moreover, this expectation is thankfully backed by the law in various jurisdictions. I would very much like to see those rights beefed up for the machine learning age, after reading all these comments.
Or would you like to live in a panopticon like the Chinese? Hey, you're on PUBLIC property, citizen! Smile for the camera, and don't think we can't read your lips. Like for real; we got software for that.
It is not the norm everywhere and, in any case, we should push back. It gives me no joy to walk past video surveillance cameras. They stick out like sore thumbs to me and make me feel treated like a potential criminal.
I believe we reclaim no power by recording our fellow citizens going about their daily lives. We merely augment the corpus of corporations and governments.
My beef with these smart glasses is that while they can be used to document crimes, I estimate they will typically be used for mundane purposes, while eroding the privacy of law-abiding citizens. More so than cell phones, which require you to at least hold the thing up and press a button. You will do so to document a crime, but not to mindlessly and continuously record everything you see. This changes the balance.
if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy outside of physical interaction in your immediate space outside your body (and even then, on crowded public transport, this is not the case). If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that and them recording it.
If you don't agree, you are essentially saying that you are entitled to do and say what you want, but gathering any evidence of you doing so is not allowed, which not only doesn't make sense but is also pretty indicative that you are looking to be up to no good.
> If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that and them recording it.
There is all the difference in the world. This is what we're debating here. According to your binary logic, everyone is within their right to record and retain in perpetuity all public activity, with arbitrary high fidelity. And if that's fair game, I suppose you'd be okay with unifying them into one view and mining it? Like China, but even worse. I would be disgusted and ashamed to live in such a society. Fortunately, the law does not say this.
For this specific product. If successful, you will no doubt get some i-glasses, goggles, galaxy glasses, ... and probably some infighting for openglasses and libreglasses.
First, just because China did it doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. The real bad part of Chinese system are the laws that govern what is bad and what the punishment - the surveillance in itself alone is neutral at worst. More information never hurts.
Secondly, this would be "society filming society", without the government being involved.
I really see only positive with the mass adoption of these things. When I go out in public, I drive respectfully, I don't cut in line, I clean up if I make a mess, I don't play loud music or have an obnoxiously loud car, I don't talk loudly, and am generally not an asshole to people. If someone needs the fear of being recorded, and put online and losing their job to not act like asshole, then so be it.
Because the hypothetical damage a bad member of society could do outweighs the potential risk of private life details leaking (and any effect resulting from this) for good members of society.
Say you live in a neighborhood with 50 people, and nobody knows anything about each other. Then one day, a hacker comes in an publishes a lot of private details about every single resident - grocery shopping lists, movie preferences, political leanings, website search history, even private videos and photos. However, it turns out that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while another one deals drugs. Getting information on those two is extremely valuable to the neighborhood, even if it came at a price of reduced privacy.
>It would also be a corporation filming private citizens on a very large scale (and government can obtain data from corporations).
I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment, but this never really plays out in reality. I mean, lived 4 years under a literal fascist and came out largely ok. There is enough due process in place and good people in the government to avoid misuse of power on a wide scale. Furthermore, the government is a combination of incompetency and not enough man power for the average citizen to worry about.
As for corporations, most people are ok with data being collected about them and used for things like advertising, because they still continue to use the products and apps, because the value add of those is worth more than privacy (which many people don't even understand what it is).
> However, it turns out that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while another one deals drugs.
Hypotheticals are easy to populate with supporting examples, but also in the neighborhood are the political enemies of the government, minorities, targets of oppression (e.g., LGBTQ), etc.
> I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment
Spare me your bullshit dimissal. Do you have anything substantive or is that all you have?
> this never really plays out in reality
I think cracking open any history book or reading the news will show the horrors inflicted by dictators. I'm glad you were ok.
1. Outward appearance. People don't like wearing glasses if they don't have to.
2. Tech issues: e.g. short battery life, weight, need for charging, UX.
3. Compelling features that make them worthwhile to use. This point is harder to explain, but a device needs to provide features to the wearer as they wear them and not indirect benefits. These features need to be particular to the device's unique position on the face. It needs to solve the question: what can a device on the face do, that one in the hand can't.
4. Recording content must be a secondary feature of such devices. We let smartphones into private places, such as change rooms, because they provide an enormous set of features, and only bad actors would use the recording features in an indecent way. If the main purpose of smart eyewear is to record others, then they'll not only be banned from such locations, but those around the wearer will become unnerved by them. People need privacy and downtime.
I feel meta's smart glasses partly answer point 1, but fail at the rest. They are a lop sided product in their efforts: the main feature is to produce recordings, this means there's no compelling reason to always take them out and their primary purpose is bested by the smartphone they need to be paired with. The smartphone has better cameras, better battery life, the ability to easily review and retake photos, and doesn't need to be worn on the face.
I can't understate how wearable tech needs to deliver features to the user as they're wearing them, and in a way that only that position on the body enables. Meta's product here doesn't really offer anything that they can't get in a better form from other products, products that the market already owns:
Recording content: The phone is infinitely better.
Shortcuts/listening to music: BT headphones/Airpods are simpler, have longer battery, more private and provide all of the same features such as handling calls, volume and playback control.
With al of these obvious shortcomings, the only rationale I can imagine is that Meta are just doing their fast-follow strategy. They couldn't acquire Snap, so they copied Snap's stories and now these are a copy of Snap Spectacles.
> Any good argument that anyone can think of for a scenario where smart eyewear will not be as ubiquitous as smart phones eventually?
I see 2 potential scenarios:
1. Some series of safety/privacy mishaps will lead to social/media hysteria which will push politicians towards a ban for such devices.
2. Initial price set too high will cause vicious circle of: low userbase -> lack of interest from developers -> lack of valuable features -> low userbase.
I won't argue that these are very probable scenarios, but quite possible imho.
But these aren't good enough to see mass adoption. It's possible that the tech needed to create an affordable smart glasses product that is actually usefully is for whatever reason just physically impossible to create.
I don't want to typical mind the world and assume very many people feel the same, but I'm at least chiming in with the few here who have already they don't like wearing any kind of jewelry or really non-essential accoutrement of any kind. I have thankfully never needed corrective glasses, but I don't wear sunglasses, either, nor a watch, nor hats. I don't even wear my wedding ring except when I'm traveling and my wife nags me enough. I get that a wearable probably feels less obtrusive than a phone to someone who actually uses their phone a lot, but I don't. It's not obtrusive sitting in my pocket and even less so when it's on my bedside table charging and I'm somewhere else without it. Anything I'm wearing is inherently there. I don't particularly want to be that integrated with a digital world. I don't usually feel much of a need to record or augment my environment.
I'd go for musculoskeletal enhancement, given how much it sucks to get old and have more or less at least one active chronic joint injury at all times no matter what, but thankfully, for now, my eyes and memory still work pretty well on their own.
Is there a good way to text someone with smart glasses yet? How about cropping a photo before posting to instagram? What's the experience of doomscrolling twitter/x/whatever? I really don't think they're going to be as ubiquitous, as smartphones without being as good or better than them in at least some of these
Eventually? Sure. Maybe. It wont be a capture story, it'll be a consumption and interaction story.
The biggest thing preventing that future is hardware, and considering how you're brushing up against hard physics, I honestly don't see smart eyeglasses that look like normal eyelgasses playing out in any serious capacity for a looooong time.
I don't think it will be as ubiquitous as smart phones for the same reason smart watches are not as ubiquitous as smart phones.
The reason I do not wear a smart watch is not because they're not useful, but because it's simply not comfortable for me to be wearing something on my wrist. It's not a big deal, but I prefer to not wear rings, watches, bracelets, etc.
Similarly, I prefer contacts over glasses because of a 1) glasses reduce your field of view / quality of vision, 2) the touch / feel of having something on my face, and 3) them inevitably falling off or being grabbed by my baby.
Smart watches got as ubiquitous as normal watches, and smartphones got as ubiquitous as wallets (and other things you might keep in a pocket or purse). I expect smart glasses will become about as ubiquitous as regular glasses.
David Brin's 'Earth' novel (which feels very prescient in some ways) has elderly people wearing sunglasses that continuously capture live video which is monitored by (private?) security companies. If I recall correctly, in the novel this effectively eliminates street-crime.
We already do this with dashcams; when the form factor allows, I expect it'll be just as common for walking. For mostly the same reasons. It might actually improve city street life.
Comfort and looks: In recent years I have seen lots of people move from glasses to contacts or even to laser surgery. And smart glasses will necessarily be even heavier.
Battery life: The announcement says 4 hours. That puts it at "gaming laptop" levels of inconvenience. It will have to be at least day long to be that ubiquitous and improvements of that scale will take many years.
Usability: touch gestures on the frame or a smartphone app make this very non-effortless. The "think or blink in a certain way" is definitely not there yet and I doubt it will be in the next 20 years. Also, that UX would be the innovation, not the glasses it is affixed to.
Banal reason: Look at VR, 3D, google glass,... . Much hype and then nothing. Why should this be any different?
I mean, sure, there are plenty: regulation, battery life, ruggedness, the creep factor, the fact that this does not provide me with anything similar to the value of a smartphone.
Not all of us spend our days walking down urban streets, having a desire to have the things around us augmented. My smart phone spends 98% of its life in my pocket because I don't want or need any application most of the time. I've tried adopting a smartwatch on multiple occasions and never found it offered me any value. All it did was convince me to turn off a bunch of notifications I didn't need to be getting to begin with.
You have a presented a great argument on why you will not be using smart eyewear. Nothing convincing about why it won't be adopted by the general population. Smart watch doesn't have and will never have anywhere close to the capabilities smart eyewear eventually will.
My point is that this view of the "general population" is extremely skewed. I would wager that more than half of smartphone users do not have any use case for their phone aside from calling, texting, and scrolling social media. Despite years of the technology existing, no one has come forward with a use case for "smart" glasses that has even had remotely broad appeal with the general public. It's all hype backed up by descriptions of niche uses.
The argument is that many people go through the hassle of contact lenses as to not have to wear things on their face.
The bigger problem is that most of reality is just not that interesting. We are already well passed the marginal utility of additional photos/video.
Augmented reality has been right around the corner for many years now. There is obviously all kinds of fundamental flaws with these ideas that those with vested interest pretend do not exist.
The same argument I make against smartwatches: they are great for people who regularly wear the dumb version, but uncomfortable for people who don't.
Smartphones became ubiquous quickly because by the year 2007 almost everyone was used to having a cellphone in their pocket, smart or not. Personally, I find regular sun/glasses uncomfortable and I don't see myself ever buying smart ones.
> Any good argument that anyone can think of for a scenario where smart eyewear will not be as ubiquitous as smart phones eventually?
Yes, if it is clunky and doesn't look like an ordinary accessory people would wear anyway.
Smart watches are popular enough as people might wear a watch. Smart glasses could be popular if they look like actual glasses. Smart pants? Sure, if they can be worn like pants, thrown in the laundry and so on.
I recently saw an ad, probably on facebook, for a camera with a form factor the size of a USB stick, that you could clip on your belt or lapel or whatever, and record whatever was around you with a wide angle lens.
The only argument that I have is that wearing glasses kind of sucks and is pretty inconvenient. And glasses are kind of a fashion statement so unless these manufacturers can come up with a way to easily swap out parts like the frame (just like people change phone cases today) and lenses (to support people with prescriptions), it'll be tough to reach the mainstream.
I’d say “comfort”. Glasses aren’t comfortable for many people and neither are contact lenses. I have a mild prescription but the discomfort of the glasses (arms, nose bridge, turning head more) is greater than the discomfort of my vision not being ultra sharp (for me). So a future of putting on glasses for the tech really isn’t for me.
Glasses are uncomfortable to wear all the time. They are hard to control because they have very limited input methods. Nobody wants to charge their glasse. Every "smart glasses" product ever has failed - nobody wants these.
"Capture anything" aka recording videos is exactly one use case compared to a smartphone which can do that and..basically anything else. So I don't see how smart glasses will ever approach the ubiquity of a phone.
People spend thousands to avoid having to wear glasses or contacts all the time.
Now you can wear them all the time again, but now with more ads?
EDIT to add something less snarky: phones were a "here's another thing to carry in your purse or pocket" additive thing to lifestyles, which wasn't too big a burden, and then gradually got more and more useful. Glasses and contacts, on the other hand, have decades of evidences of people actively avoiding them except for situational stuff. So them getting as pervasive as phones would need a lot more behavioral change.
Something about this statement on Berkshire's website is really amusing:
"If you have any comments about our WEB page, you can write us at the address shown above. However, due to the limited number of personnel in our corporate office, we are unable to provide a direct response."
You're correct, no one wants to be dependent on luck. That's not what this article is saying. It's merely saying that putting yourself "out there", potentially gives you many more opportunities, which consequently can turn into producing even more great stuff. I'm sure Einstein was happy his ideas got exposure, and I'm sure that exposure led to collaborations and leverage that he wouldn't have had otherwise.
reply