Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#841

Post by hattmall »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #803
wyclif wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Assuming both commenters are honest, I'm going to listen to the person who works in QA in the industry. 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 ye…

This is just industry entrenchment. Owning a pair of old vs new raybans just doesn't compare, it's not just the weight. The springs and material are simply stronger, they don't break or get scuffed as easily. The new lenses may have some better technical properties in the lab or extreme settings but the biggest difference is just keeping them smudge free. Old lenses just stay clean and are so much easier to simply wipe down. The new ones are nearly impossible to clean without chemicals and seem to get dirty almost immediately.

The bit about cars is telling too. Yes new cars are better in everyway on paper and in extreme cases. But from an actual consumer usage standpoint it's not the always better... $3500 repair because I bumped a guardrail on the highway one night vs some touchup paint in an older car. High speed collision, sure new car is preferred.

No one at a marina is going to try and sell you on a 1980s Yamaha 2-Stroke vs the new EFI 4 Strokes, but anyone that owns both would tell you they just wish they made a few improvements to the old style instead of going completely modern. Of course the new motor makes 30 more HP and uses less fuel but it needs vastly more maintenance and you need an entire parts store to have a reasonable chance of avoiding being stranded.

The improvements are great, but for most things, for most people, they just want them to work well for their intended typical usage.

It's wonderful the new F225s can operate in 9ft swells at 0F but I would really just like it to have a greater than 50% chance of starting up in calm 75 degree weather which is like 90% of the time I'm boating.

You know the dealers recommendations though, and I'm not joking, is just buy two (or more) motors!

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#842

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #824
rconti wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find both comments pretty insightful and have a hard time disagreeing with either. It's nice that the poster you're replying to has deep knowledge about these glasses, but it doesn't actually change the way you feel about a sturdier-feeling product. And, sure, maybe you treat them really carefully, but the fact that they're 40 years old at least proves SOMETHING about them. Sometimes things that "feel" high-quality…

> It's nice that the poster you're replying to has deep knowledge about these glasses, but it doesn't actually change the way you feel about a sturdier-feeling product. This is the entire basis of Beats putting chunks of shitty iron in their headphones. It does absolutely nothing for the audio quality, but it makes them feel heavier and therefore people will swear up and down they are of better quality. Part of being…

Listening to some of these arguments you'd believe we need to get an expert's opinion and a literature review to gauge the quality of the things we use in our daily lives.

I don't need an expert showing me a frequency curve to gauge the quality of earphones, I don't need an expert on manufacturing to tell me whether my current pair of glasses are more or less solid than the previous pair.

Part of being an intelligent person is also accepting that other people are just as intelligent as you, and not complete fools. People can see what's right in front of their eyes.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#843

Post by capableweb »

justinclift wrote: post #471
capableweb wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full quote is: > 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.

> 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…

> 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...

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#844

Post by joshstrange »

world2vec wrote: post #835
washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

In the sci-fi novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (highly recommended btw) there is a piece of tech called "abglanz" which is an identity shield mask that flickers in iridescent blurry patterns to protect a person's privacy from camera surveillance.

I seem to recall a similar device in. “Fall; or, Dodge in Hell”. I think it was a collar-type device you wore but maybe it was closer to a helmet.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#845

Post by washywashy »

world2vec wrote: post #835
washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

In the sci-fi novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (highly recommended btw) there is a piece of tech called "abglanz" which is an identity shield mask that flickers in iridescent blurry patterns to protect a person's privacy from camera surveillance.

Also gevulot in Quantum Thief - mentioned in nested comment above

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#846

Post by Draiken »

barrysteve wrote: post #828
Draiken wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we forgetting that we live in cities with cameras literally everywhere? 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).

Why would he be forgetting that ? He's allowed to be aginst both glasses and city-wide survelliance. This knee-jerk attempt to annul judgment has been so heavily bred into online discussions, since roughly 2018. Our current state of recording is not a counter argument to the concept, it's a stating of the facts.

I cannot tell you why, or if in this specific instance they are forgetting or not.

My point is more of a general one. The hypocrisy of the masses is real. Most only really care about the instances they can perceive and accept all other ones as long as they aren't inconvenient.

I'm not trying to annul any judgements, merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live under. At this point having a camera in your glasses is merely a more convenient way to take pictures.

And it's not like there aren't already glasses with cameras, for example. If a creep wants to creep, they will do it whether we want it or not. I simply don't understand how this product changes anything in relation to what already happens.

We are already surveilled and creeps already take pictures.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#847

Post by dave7 »

Hextinium wrote: post #348
jperras wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cognitive load of the notifications is an interesting point that I hadn't considered; I can see myself being distracted by those in the workflow I proposed in my previous comment. I wonder if much of this could be solved by OS-level functionality (or at least having it in a developer-accessible SDK) that allows the new "always-on" lock screens to immediately trigger an application on a single tap.

This is on some android phones, double tapping power will open the camera. I use it all the time to take pictures of information that I don't want to write down, package numbers, measurements, error logs, all just tap tap, point, volume down.

> This is on some android phones, double tapping power will open the camera.

Holy... wow, thank you!

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#848

Post by OJFord »

capableweb wrote: post #306
OJFord wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The full quote is: > 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 full quote is:

> > 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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#849

Post by 34679 »

boffinAudio wrote: post #810
blagie wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.... 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"

>somewhat 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 - th…

The founding fathers didn't record any video, publicly or privately. They were still able to "exercise political freedom".

There's no such thing as a "fundamental, universal right" that requires the possession and use of a product.

Post reply on HN