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

231–240 of 263 posts

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#231

Post by naasking »

oarsinsync wrote: post #216
naasking wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.

Google for “activate webcam without light” Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on? How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?

You don't make it software controlled, you hardwire it so it can't be hacked.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#232

Post by megy »

QasimK wrote: post #148
nradov wrote: post #112

I think there's definitely a market for endurance athletes. Runners and cyclists would like to see time, speed, distance, cadence, power output, navigation, etc without having to look down at a wristwatch or bike computer. Those people are accustomed to spending a lot on sports equipment. There are existing products like the Everysight Raptor and Garmin Varia View but they're bulky or goofy looking or obstruct vision…

I agree in general that it would be useful in these situations. As someone who wears glasses, I find it impossible to run with them because of the movement or them just falling off. Are people who wear glasses able to run with them - am I doing something wrong?

I always run and cycle with glasses, no problem at all. I even have reasonably heavy sunnies. Just make sure they are a tight fit and metal frames help form them around your head. I have never even noticed them really.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#233

Post by megy »

erikj wrote: post #14

I'm disappointed that "programming for Vaunt will involve JavaScript". We're stuck with this horribly designed language on the web because browsers don't run anything else (natively), and there is a strong trend in the field to replace it, either with compilation of saner languages to JS or with WebAssembly. We don't need to infect another nascent market with this atrocity, let it die.

Sure, but it is easy to use, easy to learn, and everyone has a compiler,

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#234

Post by megy »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #223
nradov wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that you could read and reply to texts safely while driving. That simply isn't plausible.

Glass verbally reads you the text, you verbally reply to the text. Even if you glance at the screen, it's more like an overlay than a second place to look. Comparatively, the center console of a car is drastically less safe to look at than a heads-up display like Google Glass. We seem to accept that center displays are largely safe to use (with some functions disabled while driving).

None of that means it is safe.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#235

Post by anotherevan »

I think this looks awesome. The only problem is I have two pairs of glasses - one for reading/computer and one for everything else - so I'll need two of them.

If I was them, I would add a bone conduction speaker in the stem so it can give you audible information as well.

I also like the ring input device another commenter mentioned.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308730

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#236

Post by setr »

majormajor wrote: post #229
setr wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think quantity is overrated, and it just becomes write-only-memory. I still take hundreds of photos for myself every year, but I doubt my kids will ever look at them for more than a few hours, max. My mother has a habit of taking a bunch of photos of an event, and posting all of them to fb, disregarding quality. Blurry shots, photos of people mid-scarfing down food, etc, it all goes up. These kinds of collections…

> In the same way, I doubt you'd have the problem having many unseen photos if you selected, and shared, the ones that were worth sharing. I doubt all of the thousands should be shared; instead you're forcing the filtering process on every individual you pass the collection to. That's kinda the point, isn't it? Hardly anybody actually spends their time curating their possessions for future generations, yet nobody is…

I would think you also don't want thousands of random photos in your archives: you'd ideally have filtered through it already, and whatever remains is likely worth looking back on

An archive of 10,000 images, i think, should be an impressive work; a grand feat of labour, through years of collection and curation. Even if you don't care about the content, you'd have to care about the effort spent. For personal use, or for sharing.

>Hardly anybody actually spends their time curating their possessions for future generations, yet nobody is super sad about this missing inheritance

I think ideally, you wouldn't have to curate for the future generations, just the future you, to create a valuable collection. But people often don't even curate for themselves, maintaining a mostly worthless collection. (With maybe a few hidden gems)

And I think curated collections, even those that never leave the basement, are assigned an inherent value. The attic used as a dump can burn and no one will care.

And in the same fashion, constantly recorded lifespans will also have little value (except maybe to historians), if it stays as a data dump. The value of that feature is lost if left alone, as is the collection of objects dumped in the attic. But the act of collecting gives you the chance to derive value that you otherwise couldn't (say because you didn't expect that particular moment to be noteworthy before it occurred for example), by curating it. A found, used but unprocessed film roll has no value; a gallery of selected photos can be extremely valuable.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#237

Post by rland »

I can't help but think of how much more productive a factory worker or repairman would be with these glasses, if it were possible to display instructions, dimensions, parts of a reference manual, etc...

The first successful business in the "glasses with HUD" space will be one that targets businesses which manufacture complex things using human beings.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#238

Post by mojomark »

epmaybe wrote: post #65
epmaybe wrote: post #63

I watched the Verge video this morning where they tried to explain how the hologram projector works, but I am still confused. How can it ensure a sharp image shining directly through your own intraocular lens (not the glasses themselves) to the retina? If you have a "longer" or "shorter" eyeball the light ray's focus point will not be on the retina itself.

In reading the article I see that they are using VCSE Laser. Does that answer the question?

Just think of it this way: all natural light (i.e. the typical incoherent light you see reflected or emitted off of surfaces in your environment) emit wavefronts that eminate spherically from each reflection (or emission) point. As such, the spherical wavefronts from light eminating from objects close towards your eye (i.e. less than ~8m away, a.k.a optical infinity), will have a curvature that the optics of your eye (i.e. your cornea and lens) work or morph in order to focus into a point on your retina. The closer the object is to your eye, the greater the curvature (i.e. the higher the angle of divergence). However, objects further from your eye (i.e. greater than ~8m, or optical infinity), from your eye's perspective, will have a wavefront that is still curved, but that is essentially flat, such that your eye's optics do not have to morph to focus thes objects. All objects past optical infinity appear "in focus" unless your eye attempts to focus (i.e. the lens morphs or "accomodates") on an object in the foreground. A laser beam essentially emulates a flat wavefront because the photons comprising the beam have a very small angle of divergence. Thus, light eminating from a laser will appear in focus just like an object placed at optical infinity. Actually, this is part of the principle underpinning the accomodation-vergence conflict.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#239

Post by trisimix »

rland wrote: post #237

I can't help but think of how much more productive a factory worker or repairman would be with these glasses, if it were possible to display instructions, dimensions, parts of a reference manual, etc... The first successful business in the "glasses with HUD" space will be one that targets businesses which manufacture complex things using human beings.

If you can display it on that tiny ass screen you could probably just program a machine to do it. Sounds like a business that wouldnt last long.
Post reply on HN