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

201–210 of 235 posts

Re: Nearby Glasses

#201

Post by nomel »

nkrisc wrote: post #127
nomel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at this almost unanimously negative comment section, on a tech website, it appears you should be concerned about your safety while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative. > for identifying creeps nearby > I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. > Would renaming to ”Nearby Glassholes” be acceptable as a PR? > If you're…

Not advocating for unprovoked violence, but I do hope wearing things like this remains socially unacceptable. Not all technology is good.

I'll be sad if this kills the whole concept of HUD/display replacements. I want my 32 inch screen while I work in the coffee shop/plane! Maybe the "workaround" will be giant bulky VR setups, to cushion the punches a bit better.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#202

Post by nomel »

itishappy wrote: post #119
nomel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ability to record without my knowledge or consent All major brands have a clear indicator for when they're recording. Someone could block that indicator out, but someone could also just go to Amazon.com and select one of hundred of available pinhole cameras or not-smart camera glasses. These aren't enabling an ability that hasn't been enabled for decades . If anything, seeing someone with main brand smart glass…

Existing alternatives also make me uncomfortable for the exact same reasons. I would prefer to avoid anyone who purchases a pinhole camera for public use, regardless of whether it came with an LED to indicate recording. To their credit, smart glasses are an obvious signal for me to avoid. That doesn't make me appreciate them any more.

Every cellphone in every hand is a recording device, very often used in public. Where I am, you can look most anywhere, at any time, and see someone on a phone call, taking a picture/video, posing, etc. What's the significant difference that I'm not seeing, especially since the smart glasses have an indicator, and cellphones DO NOT.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#203

Post by com2kid »

itishappy wrote: post #180
com2kid wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but smart glasses have terrible recording time limits. A cheap $30 pinhole camera with a SD card will far surpass meta glasses in recording capabilities. Hidden cameras have been a thing for a long time now. Stick one in a pair of glasses and give it a super short battery life and people freak out...

It used to be if you were caught wearing a hidden camera in a department store the police would be called. Now they're being billed as fashion accessories. Sorry, but "normalize hidden cameras" isn't a movement I can get behind.

My point is the tech is nothing new.

Every person holding a cellphone up in their hands could also be pointing a camera around at people, a camera with much higher fidelity, computing power, and one that can take much longer videos.

This is just panic about a new form factor. The same thing happened when cell phones came along, with the exact same talking points.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#204

Post by ddtaylor »

abid786 wrote: post #199
ddtaylor wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

These are fairly common problems for newer apps in Android which has been changing quite a bit in the recent years. There are multiple ways to do "safe area" viewport stuff. It's reasonable to make these kinds of mistakes.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#205

Post by tamimio »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #81
tamimio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anti-smart-glasses glasses that detect smart glasses and have an invisible beam that can target and blind the cameras I love it! I literally thought of something similar while writing the above comment, something like an EMP that disables all nearby camera sensors for 10min or so.

> an EMP that disables all nearby camera sensors for 10min or so Some years ago, there was a guy that got arrested (may have been in Chicago), for riding on the train, and running a cellphone jammer, because he hated people on the phone, while on the train. Might be considered somewhat similar. It could definitely earn you a beatdown, if someone catches you.

How did they catch him?! I remember I read something similar of a guy having a cell jammer in his car, because he didn’t want people being busy on their phones while driving, but they caught him because the cell towers detected the jammer and eventually triangulated him, not sure about a guy in a train.

On the topic: if the glasses can be impacted with anything RF, it would be an easy job, but it’s a camera, optical sensors, etc. and only an optical way could counter that, imo.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#206

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

tamimio wrote: post #205
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an EMP that disables all nearby camera sensors for 10min or so Some years ago, there was a guy that got arrested (may have been in Chicago), for riding on the train, and running a cellphone jammer, because he hated people on the phone, while on the train. Might be considered somewhat similar. It could definitely earn you a beatdown, if someone catches you.

How did they catch him?! I remember I read something similar of a guy having a cell jammer in his car, because he didn’t want people being busy on their phones while driving, but they caught him because the cell towers detected the jammer and eventually triangulated him, not sure about a guy in a train. On the topic: if the glasses can be impacted with anything RF, it would be an easy job, but it’s a camera, optical…

He was sitting on the train, with it in his lap. Someone snapped a pic. Looked a bit like one of those Cradlepoint routers, with 4 antennas.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#207

Post by sublinear »

socalgal2 wrote: post #184
sublinear wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet we live in a world where even a basic surveillance camera, dashcam, or bodycam are often broken, missing, or turned off. It's not always nefarious. The friction is just too high and people don't actually care about any of those things you listed as much as you might believe. If they did, we'd just as easily employ people performing audits on every interaction of every waking moment since the beginning of huma…

I did’t say anyone wanted those things. I said they were positives the show ignored and don’t require AI with Ai added the use cases are so compelling they fly off th shelves once they get the form and ux right. Everything you wrote above was said about PDAs in the 90s and yet here we are in 2025 an 85% of the planet has a PDA, renamed smartphone

> Everything you wrote above was said about PDAs in the 90s

No it wasn't. PDAs were seen as crappy little computers, but the applications were obvious because the bigger much more impressive computers were everywhere by then. There was no question about the value of personal computing anymore.

Everything regarding probabilistic AI is either about optimization or trading off costs. All such applications are intrinsically and perpetually lost in the weeds. The use cases aren't new because "generative" is a marketing buzzword desperately trying to cover up what is actually just "imitation".

AI makes what was already possible more accessible. It is useful, but not a revolution for the layperson or even most businesses apart from bridging knowledge gaps. It's a new way to search, but iterative at best. People are in awe of the money being exchanged, but are also in denial that it's almost entirely defense spending.

If it was just a matter of cost, scale, capability, etc. then why am I not allowed to own a flying car with my existing driver's license? Why doesn't everyone own full auto guns? Why do we serve horrible food in hospitals? Why do corporate offices thrive on work that technically never needed more than one person to accomplish even before computers were commonplace? The answers are all political.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#208

Post by [deleted] »

red_admiral wrote: post #191
stbtrax wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Nearby Glasses

#209

Post by zephen »

jibal wrote: post #196
jibal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

P.P.S.

"Honor-based" has a historic meaning. It is you who are attempting to change it.

That...

Usually doesn't go well.

https://social.psych.iastate.edu/about-my-research/research-...

Re: Nearby Glasses

#210

Post by itishappy »

com2kid wrote: post #203
itishappy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be if you were caught wearing a hidden camera in a department store the police would be called. Now they're being billed as fashion accessories. Sorry, but "normalize hidden cameras" isn't a movement I can get behind.

My point is the tech is nothing new. Every person holding a cellphone up in their hands could also be pointing a camera around at people, a camera with much higher fidelity, computing power, and one that can take much longer videos. This is just panic about a new form factor. The same thing happened when cell phones came along, with the exact same talking points.

Totally agree, but that's not a justification. "We already do a thing you don't like so you won't mind if we do it lot more, right?"

The same talking points still apply to cell phones. I think people who record TikToks in public are similarly gross and I go out of my way to avoid them.

I watched a guy setup a cell phone to record his laps in a pool yesterday. He swam one lap right about a meter from the 15 year-old girl playing with her mom, then climbed out of the pool, shut off his phone, and walked away. The remainder of the pool was open. Should I have called him out? I couldn't decide, and therefore didn't. This is normal now.

Post reply on HN