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

Intel made smart glasses that look normal

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 263 posts

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#101

Post by jetpacktuxedo »

grok2 wrote: post #59
kageneko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of ring interfaces, Ring [0] was a Kickstarter project that happened. I seem to recall that it did ship but didn't actually work too well. I suspect that your simpler interface would have been a lot more successful. I think some of it depends on which finger you're targeting, too. Wearing it on the index finger makes it easier to tap/push buttons using the thumb. In my HCI class, we went over this paper [1]…

I found this use of the Myo (to control the robotic arm of an amputee) really cool -- it seems like they found a life-changing use for what might have ended up a cool toy -- http://developerblog.myo.com/meet-the-man-with-a-myo-control... -- not sure how perfectly it works though.

Probably not particularly well as the Myo band only detects a handful of super basic gestures, and unless they have changed their stance in the past year or two they refuse to expose the raw data to developers. This makes it impossible to distinguish more than their predefined gestures.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#102

Post by crispytx »

crispytx wrote: post #99

"uses retinal projection to put a display in your eyeball..." That sounds awful! Like some shit from Black Mirror! Jesus, Fuck!

I'd like to clarify, tech is great and all, but I don't want to become a fucking cyborg. What the hell is wrong with these people?

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#103

Post by PJDK »

gpm wrote: post #96
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on. I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to…

The proposal wasn't dragnet surveillance. It was everyone walking around with a rolling 30-second video buffer that they can chose to save. There is no giant record for someone to datamine. Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk. My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond…

I think one of the reasons people don't like the idea is this very reason.

It's coming from the position "someone is likely to do me wrong and I will be collecting evidence with that in mind". That in itself is a pretty aggressive position to take - but once you interact with someone it then says "_you_ are likely to do me wrong".

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#104

Post by yoz-y »

lj3 wrote: post #5
bsaul wrote: post #2

Oh yeah, that swipe gesture looks so natural... Now in addition to people talking out loud alone on the streets, people checking their notifications on their watch and phones at dinner, we'll have people looking at your teeth doing weird eye and head motions when you talk to them...

I can't help but think wearable computers aren't going to become viable until we further refine brain computer interfaces.

Hm, I think that good EMG interfaces will come way sooner than a useful BCI.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#105

Post by maltalex »

konart wrote: post #84
maltalex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".

>Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

> I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more.

Really? Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work? Or at home, while interacting with your family? I hope not. I also hope that you'd object to any attempts to put such a device.

It's true that society by and large accepts CCTV cameras in public places. But that's not the same as equipping everyone with an always-on camera and having every human interaction recorded. That's just dystopian.

> For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

That's the oldest argument in the book. And sure, it's true. If you point a camera at people, they will behave "better". But that's insane, that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel. Sure, that might work, but it kinda seems like we're losing something important along the way, no?

Having everyone "act better" is a good cause. But surveillance comes at a huge social cost, not to mention the potential for abuse by the watchers or those who decide what "better" is. Your "act better" might be a long way off the government's idea of how it would like citizens to behave.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#106

Post by dsfyu404ed »

gpm wrote: post #96
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on. I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to…

The proposal wasn't dragnet surveillance. It was everyone walking around with a rolling 30-second video buffer that they can chose to save. There is no giant record for someone to datamine. Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk. My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond…

>There is no giant record for someone to datamine.

It's laughable to think there won't be cloud integration. Having automatic or one click upload is probably one of the most powerful features. People want to be able to post stuff on snapchat, store it in drive/dropbox, etc. The data sets will be mined just like existing social media is mined.

>Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk.

The UK goes particularly far (for a western country) when it comes to mining the data to recognize and track people. That's why I chose it as my example.

>My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond "the DMV clerk being nicer". It's being able to hold the cop who pulls me over accountable. Being able to get video of the van that hit a parked car and sped off. Being able to submit proof that the person I saw trying to open the doors on a bunch of parked cars was actually trying to do that. The second two are real examples that have happened to me within the last 6 months, the first one is a real example that you can easily see the utility of via verifiable stories on the internet.

Same general idea, multiple implementations. All the things you listed are about on the same order.

>And even if you think my ability to influence society is minimal with it, that's fine, ability to influence society wasn't why people above were asking for it.

I agree. Having a "record the last 30sec of my life" button would be super useful. Every time I see something funny, I could scroll back , take a screenshot and post it online so my buddies can get a laugh. That's useful. I think it would also be incredibly dangerous at scale because it will be easy for the incumbents to use to influence society.

Basically everything I'm saying here has been said about Facebook/Google, etc. The difference I see in this case is that I think that by reducing the friction of recording/uploading to near zero the effects will be magnified.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#107

Post by cryptoz »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #95
mjlangiii wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just my two cents; I'm a father of 4 and I'm okay with not capturing those moments on film. And I mean that in two senses. One, I'm fine using my very imperfect memory to recall special moments and two, because of the logistical problems with grabbing the camera I'm not willing to risk missing out being fully in the moment. The occasionally photograph from an event or time period seems sufficient to conjure up the fe…

I hate that I lost it, will have to spend an afternoon on the internet achive, But these are so tired. It's the exact same things people were spouting when phones started to have cameras. That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen. Button cameras have existed for literally decades, if someone wants to take discrete pictures of you the…

> That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen.

It's a little early to say that, given that we're talking about things that take 50 years to transpire. You're telling people right now, in the midst of the smartphone explosion, that it's all said and done and over - you won't regret it at any point in your life, you'll always be glad of that smartphone, etc. But you don't know that yet.

And I will say that for some people it has already happened. I have missed countless things in the last 10 years because I was looking for my phone to take a picture. Events that happened and I never witnessed them to even get a memory of, just because I was looking down for my phone.

I already regret having the camera nearby but not quite ready to go for the last 10 years. Your examples are already wrong, and actually quite offensive in your tone, suggesting that you know better than everyone and that you know how everyone will feel in 50 years.

The concerns are real and justified, even if you personally don't share them.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#108

Post by JustSomeNobody »

spike021 wrote: post #98
mjlangiii wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just my two cents; I'm a father of 4 and I'm okay with not capturing those moments on film. And I mean that in two senses. One, I'm fine using my very imperfect memory to recall special moments and two, because of the logistical problems with grabbing the camera I'm not willing to risk missing out being fully in the moment. The occasionally photograph from an event or time period seems sufficient to conjure up the fe…

Those are fine two cents for you, but I don't know why it should matter that you mention them in this thread. The parent comment clearly shows he/she appreciates the ability to take photos/videos at his/her leisure. If that works for them then why bring your opinion to the conversation?

Conversation - the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words.

Opinions are ideas [0].

> ... but I don't know why it should matter that you mention them in this thread.

Is this not an opinion?

[0] loosely.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#109

Post by nogridbag »

mjlangiii wrote: post #92
nogridbag wrote: post #37

Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually the best feature. You could really capture some great moments directly from your eye's perspective at the wink of an eye. My mother recently passed and out of all the photos and videos, my favorite was a 10 second video of me handing her flowers shot from Google Glasses. It looks like she's staring right back into my soul. I have a three mont…

Just my two cents; I'm a father of 4 and I'm okay with not capturing those moments on film. And I mean that in two senses. One, I'm fine using my very imperfect memory to recall special moments and two, because of the logistical problems with grabbing the camera I'm not willing to risk missing out being fully in the moment. The occasionally photograph from an event or time period seems sufficient to conjure up the fe…

I don't mean to derail this topic, but we don't have too many videos of my mother because for half of her life recording a video meant carrying one of those massive VHS recorders on your shoulder. When she passed and I realized how few videos we had, my first thoughts were: "How can I preserve these moments with my daughter, not just for myself but for her when I'm no longer around?" So I started looking into 360 degree video cameras and that sort of thing and that's when I remembered Google Clips. It's not ideal, but it may be one of the better solutions for preserving moments that doesn't require you to miss anything. I seem to take 90% of the photos of our family, which means I'm not in 90% of the photos.

I hope that doesn't sound strange, but you start thinking about these things during these times.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#110

Post by dsfyu404ed »

PJDK wrote: post #103
gpm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposal wasn't dragnet surveillance. It was everyone walking around with a rolling 30-second video buffer that they can chose to save. There is no giant record for someone to datamine. Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk. My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond…

I think one of the reasons people don't like the idea is this very reason. It's coming from the position "someone is likely to do me wrong and I will be collecting evidence with that in mind". That in itself is a pretty aggressive position to take - but once you interact with someone it then says "_you_ are likely to do me wrong".

I think whether that position is reasonable depends on whether you see people as trustworthy by default or not.

Most people would not have a problem having every minute of their workday recorded if their job was handling gold bars or diamonds or something really high stakes.

Having even the most trivial interactions between people subject to a recording is inappropriate overkill if you believe people to be trustworthy.

It's like requiring a notarized bill of sale for a used laptop.

If you believe people to be untrustworthy by default then you would consider everyone having the ability to discreetly record any interaction with anyone else to be a net positive.

Post reply on HN