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

931–940 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#931

Post by mgrund »

bbor wrote: post #930
mgrund wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds interesting, any reading material you could point to about this?

Hmmm it’s a very hard thing to sum up in one piece, not sure I have a good author… I highly recommend skimming Marvin Minsky’s “The Frame Problem” (TL;DR personal assistants will only be helpful once they have intuition), and Picardy writings on Affective computing (TL;DR computers need to simulate our mental states in order to help us effectively). This is a good reminder to look for more lit though! Philosophy wise…

Thanks!

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#932

Post by Draiken »

M4v3R wrote: post #854
Draiken wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This lowers the barrier to take unwanted photos/videos significantly. Yes, surveillance cameras are everywhere but your everyday person does not have access to their feed (and the publicly accessible ones are not that common and usually very far away). This is different from possibly being recorded by anyone you pass by in high resolution, for their own personal use. Also, today when a person takes a photo of you it'…

For me it comes down to ignoring valid use-cases because some people might misuse it (but can already do that without this product) without actually improving anything in the larger sense. It feels like a waste.

I understand that theoretically it lowers the bar, as you said. But in my view that's not as drastic as many are expecting. You still have an LED showing the person is taking a picture and they have to command it with their voice (or a button in the glass?) to take a picture. That's apparent enough for me.

That'll be equivalent to someone pointing a phone at you. Depending on the situation it would be even more apparent since holding your phone up is extremely common today.

I absolutely hate the state we are today, but I don't see how prohibiting/shaming this product will improve anything. I can definitely see the appeal of having one of these in trips, shows, etc. Those legitimate use-cases are being bundled up with the paranoia of strangers taking pictures, which already happens today, whether we want to believe it or not.

Imagine having concerts where people aren't fucking holding their phones up all the time again. Now that would be a sight for sore eyes.

Having said all that, maybe I'm simply numb at this point. I know we're in dystopia territory already so might as well have some nice trinkets with it.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#934

Post by tpmx »

KaiserPro wrote: post #787
tpmx wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's very often a large difference between the v1 capability and the long term aspiration, both in technical capabilities and market capture. Compare Windows 1.0 ( https://winworldpc.com/product/windows-10/101 ) with Windows 10/11.

Windows 1.0 was release 38 years ago, microsoft has changed persona at least three times since then. Not that we shouldnt be suspicious of facebook, but we really must actually seek evidence rather than just decry them as witches. It lets other companies get away with loads simply because they are well liked.

Which is it, they are incompetent or they are just misunderstood?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#935

Post by wyclif »

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…

Are you seriously claiming that plastic lenses are higher quality and longer lasting than glass lenses? Plastic lenses scratch very easily; glass lenses don't. Also, I don't need to write a white paper or do a study to maintain that spring hinges are cheap compared to the barrel hinges. I've seen so many of the spring hinges break on glasses people had bought less than a year ago. They are demonstrably low quality.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#936

Post by fragmede »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #639
fragmede wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a software thing though. Not sure why they didn't run it through a stabilizer.

Hardware stabilization is superior to pure software stabilization. Software (aside from real fancy neural nets) can't fix pixels which are blurred from the camera rapidly moving while the shutter was open. My Panasonic GH5 has optical stabilization in the lens as well as a five axis linear motor system to move the camera sensor, and these systems work together to keep the image pipeline frozen in space even when the…

TIL, ty!

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#937

Post by JohnFen »

herbst wrote: post #724
baby wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rayban is famous worldwide tho

To be fair they are barely relevant in my circle and more a fashion piece for the older generation. It's not like teenager or young people around here think it's cool to have expensive cheaply made glasses

> To be fair they are barely relevant in my circle and more a fashion piece for the older generation.

I'm of the older generation (in my 50s), and at least in my circles, Ray-Bans aren't particularly cool either. They're not exactly un-cool, but they do tend to be worn by a particular sort of person.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#938

Post by inkcapmushroom »

ActorNightly wrote: post #651
ryandrake wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#939

Post by knodi123 »

ladzoppelin wrote: post #584
knodi123 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If the LED is covered, you will be required to uncover it."

Can you post where it says that, all I can find is "you will be notified"?

I interpreted "you’ll be notified to clear it" in the sense of "You will be notified that this is the reason the camera won't take pictures".

It seems like a logical assumption - what's the point of adding tech to prevent the target-visible warning light from being obscured, if you're still allowed to take the pictures with it obscured?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#940

Post by pulpfictional »

gnicholas wrote: post #899
pulpfictional wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do I go to for quality sunglasses?

I used to have Ray-Bans, but only buy Maui Jims these days. I tried Revos, which I had always thought of as very high-quality, but they were not good (lenses reflected lots of light from behind me, as if they lacked an anti-reflective coating). But even some MJs are not as good as the price would suggest. I have tried $300 MJs that didn't have spring hinges. They were just like regular lousy hinges. Costco has a sele…

Thank you.
Post reply on HN