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

361–370 of 993 posts

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#361

Post by lotsofpulp »

bix6 wrote: post #56
paxys wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no monopoly. You can buy identical glasses on the side of the street for $10. Except you aren't going to get the RayBan logo, and that's what people are paying for.

Technically not a monopoly but colloquially I disagree. They account for 30% of the global market. They own key brands, license key premium names, and control key distributors like sunglass hut and LensCrafters. Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly. As does their ability to box out competitors. The $10 look alikes are not identical. They generally are cheaper material…

>Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly.

No, it doesn't. It shows there exists demand for their products at that price point.

>As does their ability to box out competitors.

They have none. Anyone can go to various websites and order cheaper sunglasses that work just as well, or go to Costco and buy them for $25.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#362

Post by anal_reactor »

neilv wrote: post #133

What do people think about the (almost hidden) cameras in glasses? With traditional cameras, feature phones, and smartphones, if someone wanted to be creepy with the camera, they'd have to point the device at someone, which tended to look exactly like they are using the camera. (IIUC, some countries even required a shutter sound, for anti-creepy reasons, when the pointing of the phone wasn't enough warning.) Now, the…

Many years ago there was some summer camp and the staff organized a game "take a picture of your team leader without having them realize you're taking a picture". I completely obliterated the game by downloading an app that allowed me to record "in the background". I got a few good shots by showing a funny picture to people while having the front-facing camera on. Then I got other shots by turning on the back camera, locking the phone, and then just casually holding it in my hand like any other locked phone and waving it around.

The point is, if you want to secretly record, it's already trivial to do it.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#364

Post by danpalmer »

riffraff wrote: post #355
danpalmer wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing temperature to 0 doesn't make LLMs deterministic. There's still a bunch of other issues such as float math results depending on which order you perform mathematically commutative operations in.

I keep reading this but I don't get it: for the same input shouldn't the order of resulting operations be deterministic too?

Not necessarily. This is a good blog post from a few days about it: https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#365

Post by oldfuture »

oldfuture wrote: post #223

https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-promotes-stickers-for-sec... Why they shouldn't be allowed --- 1.The glasses have cameras and microphones capable of recording people nearby often without their knowledge (e.g. the recording indicator can be subtle or blocked, “GhostDot” stickers are being sold to block the LED indicator light so others won’t see when recording is happening) 2. As I remember Meta has changed its pri…

the fact that surveillance capitalism, or we should rather say surveillance oligarchy, is here does not mean we have to support it going forward, it can only be worse if nobody reacts

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#366

Post by etrautmann »

stavros wrote: post #254
paxys wrote: post #9

I saw the keynote, and while everything about the glasses was more or less as expected, seeing Zuck easily navigate the interface and type 30 words per minute while barely moving his fingers was a true WTF moment. If they can actually make the neural interface work that well then Meta has won this round.

While I agree this is extremely impressive, when I'm out walking, I'm not going to be looking for a convenient flat surface I can rest my hand on so I can type a message. It seems useless in practice.

That's not a limitation - it works in the air, on your leg, other hand, etc.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#367

Post by psyclobe »

I would give up some privacy in order to get some cool future tech; honestly I’m so in love with sci fi that I’m pretty excited to be fully connected to my own ai 24/7 like how iron man did it.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#369

Post by oldfuture »

paxys wrote: post #44
kstrauser wrote: post #33

Very interesting. And also, I hereby ban them in our office. Thou shalt not wear spyware while looking at the screens that contain our company IP.

Do you also ban cellphones in your office? And email? Text messaging? If an employee wants to steal your IP, they will.

You have more control, in theory, on a cellphone, and so do people around you. With the glasses you really have no way to say if they are listening or watching what you see. The phone has most of the time the sensors partially blocked by a bag or a pocket so it really can't be compared with eyewear.
Post reply on HN