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

Nearby Glasses

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: Nearby Glasses

#191

Post by red_admiral »

stbtrax wrote: post #86
arjie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have children? I frequently want to record things my daughter does but I find that my phone is not close at hand. I am curious if the latency to record is low-enough and I don't want to distract my daughter while she's doing whatever she's doing. I just want to capture the moment for later without interrupting the moment. They advertise it as this but I am curious what it's like in actuality.

I use it all the time for this use case. It's great because your hands are free and you can remain an active participant in play/safety/feeding. I find I capture more moments that I'm more actively involved in vs passively holding the phone and framing the shot.

But would you be worried that the some other guy at the play park is also recording your children?

Re: Nearby Glasses

#192

Post by itishappy »

drdaeman wrote: post #190
itishappy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't particularly care if you self host.

Smart glasses (or any camera-equipped device) don’t have to record anything to provide utility. If anything, the primary utility of smart glasses is the wearable display, not camera. YMMV, of course. But even machine vision-capable devices can do a lot of useful things without causing you any trouble, unless your issues are more of a religious concern rather than anything substantial.

I understand there are legitimate usages. There are also usages that make me uncomfortable. My issue is that I'm unequipped to know the difference.

Smart glasses sans camera would address my complaints (I take no issue with smartwatches, for instance), but that admittedly decreases the utility.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#193

Post by itishappy »

newyankee wrote: post #95
fusslo wrote: post #25

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-g... > Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned. I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.

I was actually hoping it could be paired with speech to text very well and help along with hearing aids when the latter do not perfectly work. There are legitimate use cases.

There are legitimate use cases and illegitimate ones. Unfortunately, I'm seeing more examples of the latter. I somehow suspect Mark's entourage aren't all hard of hearing.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#194

Post by itishappy »

socalgal2 wrote: post #185
latexr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The episode wasn't really about the tech, it was about a failing relationship, a cheating partner, and an untrusting obsessive person. Good (or decent) science fiction is never about the tech, but about its impact on people.

And this tech in the show had zero impact. The guy would have had the same issues with or without the tech. The rest of society was doing fine in that episode and nearly everyone had the tech

The impact isn't felt by most. That's the point.

Most people in China get along fine with their social credit system. I don't think that's an argument for the tech in Nosedive (S03E01).

Re: Nearby Glasses

#195

Post by itishappy »

socalgal2 wrote: post #187
saikia81 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because the tech is hard to envision right (or sci-fi writers would be rich), but the consequences are clearer

There weren’t any consequences of the tech shown. There as just a justifiably untrusting person catching their partner’s infidelity. They’d have had problems anyway. The tech didn’t cause or exacerbate the issue. To point out it was this particular person’s issue and not the tech, everyone one else in tbe show also had the tech yet were doing fine. They were shocked when they meet one person who didn’t have it. so cl…

[dead]

Re: Nearby Glasses

#196

Post by jibal »

jibal wrote: post #20
tantalor wrote: post #4

I'm a bit torn on this because (at least in the sci-fi utopia stories) when a critical mass of people are recording full time then interpersonal crime and anti-social behavior is strongly discouraged. It's like an honor-based culture at scale.

That's the opposite of honor-based, and those stories are warnings about going down that path.

P.S. The response to my comment is complete nonsense. "honor-based", as used here to mean acting with integrity, has nothing at all to do with honor killings.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#197

Post by jibal »

emptybits wrote: post #54
zephen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. Or, on re-reading, the parent is missing the point. "Honor culture" or "Culture of honor" is the term for people who are thin-skinned, quick to offense, and worried more about appearances than substance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_Uni... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing It's all about a shame-based society. When someone is made to feel ashamed…

Thanks. I had to be reminded about that phrase "honor culture" and, yes, I've heard that definition before. I was focused on how I think an "honourable person" behaves, which is ... IMO ... someone who behaves well regardless of whether or not someone is watching them. i.e. being guided by a personal moral compass, without cultural shame, guilt, government laws, religious conventions, or physical fear being primary m…

You were right, zephen is wrong. The "honor" of "honor killings"--which is about prestige within certain sick societies, has nothing at all to do with the notion of being honorable--that is, acting with integrity.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#198

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

itishappy wrote: post #103
drdaeman wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the problem is not smart glasses per se , but spyware that runs on a lot (if not most) of such devices. Shame the language makes people intrinsically hate the former by associating it with the latter without even questioning it. The idea of smart glasses is cool, the implementations are not.

Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't particularly care if you self host.

Do you consider dashcams to also be spyware? I feel like dashcams are just as hidden and nonconsensual but more or less accepted.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#199

Post by abid786 »

ddtaylor wrote: post #164
xlii wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the app doesn't work, but at least no humans wrote it (:

I don't get it. It seems to be a great start to an interesting idea. I don't care if he wrote it using punch cards or a fever dream he induced by huffing paint, the source code is there

Seems like GP spent more time testing this than the author did

Re: Nearby Glasses

#200

Post by itishappy »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #198
itishappy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't particularly care if you self host.

Do you consider dashcams to also be spyware? I feel like dashcams are just as hidden and nonconsensual but more or less accepted.

A challenge to my beliefs! What a great question! Upon reflection, I don't have anywhere near as much reaction to dashcams. There's certainly some dissonance there.

I think it's an issue of perceived benefit vs perceived risk. I see the utility in both technologies, but I assign significantly higher risk to smart glasses. I really struggle to imagine widespread abuse from dashcams.

Post reply on HN