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

Meta Ray-Ban Display

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 993 posts

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#341

Post by phire »

jwrallie wrote: post #97
cflewis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the finger thing work? What's he doing? I saw him tippy-tappy but it didn't seem like he's moving through some invisible keyboard.

It was hard to see, but it looked like handwriting to me.

For marketing reasons, it needs to be something that people can pick up with absolutely minimal practice.

I doubt it has enough accuracy for a virtual keyboards (since keyboards require precise absolute input and it measures relative), besides, most people aren't experienced with single-hand typing.

A bespoke gesture based shorthand would be optimal, but then users would need to spend months learning this new shorthand.

But (almost) everyone already has experience with handwriting, which is a single hand relative input method. It's the easiest option for people to quickly pick up and enjoy.

Though, it's far from perfect, you can see he is struggling to trick his muscle memory into writing without a pen, and he needs to do it on a solid surface (I'm not sure if that's a technology limitation, or a muscle memory limitation).

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#342

Post by robin_reala »

ghm2199 wrote: post #227

Zuckerberg's online actually quite slick @30 WPM. Brand concerns aside, its a good tech leap forward for this fidelity of communication using gestures(and costs will fall as apple, google, 3rd party get into this). You have to realize that there are only smart glasses in the market which are 1/2 way between smart and AR/VR and at the moment none have any AR/VR that are commercially at this price point or massively av…

It’s six hours battery, not thirty:

with up to six hours of mixed-use battery life and up to 30 hours of battery life total thanks to the portable (and collapsible!) charging case

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#343

Post by exitb »

zmmmmm wrote: post #81
wronglebowski wrote: post #22

The live demo of this is brutal. https://x.com/ns123abc/status/1968469616545452055

If you watch it carefully, he preempts the AI with "What do I do first" before it even answered the first time. This strongly suggests it did this in rehearsal to me and hence was far more than just "bad luck" or bad connectivity. Perhaps the bad connectivity stopped the override from working and it just kept repeating the previous response. Either way it suggests some troubling early implications about how well Meta…

The way he clung to „what do I do first” makes me think that the whole conversation was scripted in the prompt and AI was asked to reply in specific way to specific sentences. Possibility not even actually connected to the camera?

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#344

Post by Jyaif »

vunderba wrote: post #307
aacook wrote: post #99

It seems like there are a lot of negative comments about Meta's glasses which is surprising to me as a regular user. I bought these both in clear and sunglasses and I love them. I've recorded some of the most amazing videos of my baby with them. Listening to music is fantastic as it's different from regular headphones since you can still hear the world around you — I've even done a few longer bike rides with them and…

> It seems like there are a lot of negative comments about Meta's glasses which is surprising to me as a regular user. Really? Does nobody remember the "Glasshole" debacle with another equally large FAANG corporation who tried to push a similar technology? There were incidents of people getting physically assaulted JUST for wearing the things.

In 10 years the mentality evolves.

It used to be considered extremely rude to pull out your phone during a conversation, now all the under 20 do it.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#345

Post by tsimionescu »

drdaeman wrote: post #200
zmmmmm wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think we're in for a bit of a reality check on how human attention works. I have a HUD in my car that shows me directions, speed etc and when I'm looking at that the rest of the view out the windscreen is hardly even there to my visual perception even though I'm looking right at it. This seems to be getting largely overlooked but I feel like over time statistics are going to emerge that HUD type displays are inc…

Isn't it a general rule of driving (or operating any sufficiently dangerous machinery) to keep the eyes on the road, constantly reminding oneself to do so, so the attention is kept where it is needed? I mean, in theory. In practice, I see people deep in their damn phones all the time - and it's scary - but I think that's more of an attitude (social) issue than a display (technology) problem. And, yes, surely, one nee…

I think the point is that it's much easier to forget you're focusing on the speedometer instead of focusing on the road when the speedometer is physically displayed by a HUD right on the road. Especially if the speedometer keeps changing, since your eyes are naturally attracted to movement in your current field of view.

With a normal car dashboard, you're much more aware you're not seeing the road while checking your speed, and you don't actually see the speedometer moving while you're looking at the road, so it can't accidentally catch your attention.

Of course, none of this will matter in the vast majority of cases. But driving safety is all about the tail end, when you're slightly tired or when someone in front of you does something unexpected and maybe illegal, or someone jumps on the road - these are the times where accidents are avoided, and a HUD might well hurt rather than help for these cases.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#346

Post by motorest »

Almondsetat wrote: post #340
motorest wrote: post #324

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Why do you lie? Clearly this is not the case if you look at the user's submission and comment history

Do you think someone's comment history link is an obscure secret no one can access?

> Clearly this is not the case (..)

Oh really? Please explain in your own words why you believe this is not the case.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#347

Post by lotsofpulp »

pier25 wrote: post #304
paxys wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta has close to 4 billion people worldwide using one or more of their products. Their brand problem doesn't extend much further than the HN comment section.

You can use their products and still hate the brand. I use Whatsapp daily (as does everyone I know) and there's no way I'm buying anything from Meta.

You might not be buying anything from Meta with cash, but you are with information about yourself and your network.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#348

Post by mikae1 »

ryandrake wrote: post #333
whatsupdog wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. And the constant spying doesn't help either. Who wants an always online meta controlled camera/microphone in their bedroom all the time?

I'm never going to update a photo government ID to some company just to use an app. What kind of a bonkers world are we living in? Totally ridiculous. No app is worth this.

Most new accounts seem to require a face scan too (finally they're true to their name?). I recently needed to get a Facebook account and was not able to use it without providing the scan. Luckily I was able to do an AI face swap, but far from everyone is that savvy.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#349

Post by KPGv2 »

dweekly wrote: post #302
vasco wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All babies look the same, out of anything private you could film by mistake, a baby seems pretty harmless.

Face recognition is uninuitively good. Google Photos was able to pick out faces from my baby photos pretty easily.

Google's face recognition can't tell the difference between my 5yo and my newborn. And, most hilarious, my 8yo could unlock my wife's iPhone with face recognition when she was 2yo.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#350

Post by thepryz »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #121
llmthrow0827 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the VR/AR/XR demos are so insanely trivial and yet still manage to be much more difficult than current methods of doing things. Like, really, cooking? Normal method: * Search for a recipe * Leave my phone on a stand and glance at it if I forget a step Meta glasses: * Put glasses on (there's a reason I got lasek, it's because wearing glasses sucks) * Talk into the void, trying to figure out how to describe my prob…

These companies are reaching really hard for use cases while ignoring the only ones VR actually works well for. If they just went all in on gaming it would be a much better product than trying to push AI slop cooking help.

In my experience, the biggest obstacle to broader AR and VR adoption beyond reducing the price, size, and weigh of the hardware will always be the lack of good content creation tools.

I've been involved with two VR projects that were ultimately cancelled because, while we developed a sexy tech demo that showed the potential, building things out into something sustainable required too many resources and took too much time to maintain.

Post reply on HN