801–810 of 967 posts
If they made these without the camera and just kept the call functionality I would definitely be interested! My only concern is do they require a facebook account ?
For those who enjoy reading sf short stories and wonder about the implications of recording one's entire life, I can recommend the remarkable short story 'The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling' by Ted Chiang.
Great recommendation, I feel like most people on this site would enjoy his two short story compendiums. I’m not even a big SF reader but they’re among my favourite books I’ve read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the optical industry. I do R&D/quality control for a lens manufacturer and agree Luxottica is an awful company, but your comment is way off base. It's actually quite wrong. Your "zyl" acetate frames aren't higher quality. Modern acetate is stronger, lighter, less brittle, less subject to warping from temperature change, and more resistant to UV damage which impacts brittleness and color. 40 years of materia…
First of all, nobody (certainly not me) is "yelling." I find the way you wrote this response a bit telling, and that sort of thing actually detracts from your ability to persuade. I'd freely grant your point about the zyl. But the rest of your response is somewhat motte-and-bailey fallacy to me. For instance, I never maintained that there are "low quality plastic lens blanks." What I was getting at is that for a lot…
The parent just sounds like someone who loves a specific item and is a bit miffed they changed it.
Lots of "cheap plastic lenses" and "cheap spring hinges" type complaints without much backup.
Is carbon fiber cheap and rubbish because it isn't steel? Why does the parent think plastic means inferior?
"Mine are 40 years old and fine!!" Is a bit useless, and a sample of one.
I own a wide range of old and new sunglasses, and in my eyes, the new ones are mostly superior if you buy right. Granted Luxottica are a bad actor in many ways.
"... destroys the force of your argument ..." really? Does it? Does it tho? No.
I think the GP was bang on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its still offset. If I turn my head sideways to look between something or under a car or anything close to the face really is out of focus or not even in view.
Just do this ;) https://www.instagram.com/reel/BLO7_P_jIcR/
Pretty valuable data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operating such a device in Japan puts you in a legal gray area, and depending on your behaviour could result in unwanted police attention. They will respond to reports of such devices being used near spaces frequented by women or children. Act responsibly.
As it should be. I am not comfortable with the idea that creeps are just walking around taking photos of me or my family.
Where arguably the real creeps (cops and random security people) are actively watching you all the time.
I get it, if a person takes out his phone to do this it feels more intrusive (if it is or not is up for debate), but let's not kid ourselves here: we're already being recorded at almost all times (at least in most cities).
It's kind of underwhelming as a product. I don't see the average individual desiring this so they can take pictures or livestream to Instagram and Facebook. It could've been a cool tool for streamer if it allowed streaming to Twitch, Kick, etc, but Meta technologies limits its viability for that.
Apple's approach seems to be now, make a VR headset with extremely high quality passthrough and hope they can solve it down to glasses over the next decade.
Meta's approach seems to be make a really good stand alone VR headset (already done) and now make a glasses form factor with whats possible today and hope to make them meet in the middle some how eventually.
Both these product roadmaps are from a pre-ChatGPT world and seem strange now especially Vision Pro. I fully expect Meta to move more into trying to retool the glasses into a AI assistant led product and slowly move the full AR Glasses to the backburner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, don't go out into public then .. because others have every right to record what you are doing in public.
Sorry - I am confused. Are you saying that we should accept creeps lurking around taking photos of people?
In your own home - sure.
Such is the price of freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, don't go out into public then .. because others have every right to record what you are doing in public.
.... somewhat .... In the US specifically, there are protected first amendment rights. However, plenty of people have genuine reason to be concerned. Stalkers. Witness protection. Etc. Having managed large datasets, these things come up fairly often. There's an incredible diversity of potential problems. It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue like this: "Well, don't go out into public then"
Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to record anything you can perceive in public ... without that right we cannot exercise political freedom or our rights as individuals for redress.
>It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue like this: "Well, don't go out into public then"
Of course it is. They have equal rights - and equal opportunity, therefore, to express - or not express - these rights.
It is entirely up to the individual to make the decision to exercise those rights and to not deny them to others for any reason, as it is a fundamental, universal human right to record others in public.