391–400 of 870 posts
I won't even walk into a house with Alexa devices around, there is no way I'm going to let Meta glasses be in the same room as me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I have no idea where you get the idea of "free money." The government invests in science, business, and developments that help the country; and decisions involving that investment should not be colored by adherence to the current administration's political agenda. I'm not concerned about the careers of the affected individuals, as unjust as that is; I'm concerned about the damage to the country, to our relationship with our allies, and to our standing in the world. Instead we get this: Businesses that flatter Trump get to have acquisitions, and those that don't get their contracts cancelled. The new "political correctness" is towing the line for Trumpian misinformation.
I'm also not just talking about investments, but employment. Think about the jobs of federal employees for daring to have an opinion that contradicts Dear Leader.
> If a government feels that they don't contribute positively to the society,
That's a disingenuous argument. No one believes that the Trump administration is making decisions about who to support based on what is good for the country. Paramount's acquisition of WBD will be allowed for no other reason than because it helps Trump. Universities are targeted not because they are doing bad work but because they are seen as popular among the opposition. The government is defunding research not because it isn't contributing positively, but because it contradicts the government's a priori talking points. The damage done to society as a result of the defunding is, for them, just collateral damage.
> That does not mean every voice that is enabled is a "Nazi"
I never said that every voice on the right is a Nazi, just that Nazis are among those voices. And that's enough for me: if the government is supporting any Nazis and racists, as they evidently are, that's too many. And if your argument is "Hey, not all of us are literal Nazis", then you are not doing anything to advance your position.
I really want to make a fake PSA that suggests anyone wearing the Meta glasses is probably a pervert and should be proactively avoided/shunned. This product cannot be allowed to exist in the type of world I want to live in. The power structure wants these to succeed in the market for so many horrific reasons and it will require some serious societal muscle to reject them.
A) they believe in the idea
and / or
B) how much money there is to be made having people wear them.
Smart wearables as a general category of hardware have an awful rate of success, and hardware is much more expensive to get into than software. So, there's got to be a lot of money in the data consumers will be producing.
That's the part that scares me much more so than the random perverts using them in public for unsavory candid photos.
You would have to have been hiding under an extremely large rock not to assume this given the technology involved and Meta's overtly and consistently anti-privacy stances and history.
While true, that doesn't make it acceptable. In a functioning society, companies would be punished harshly for this behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also an assault, with intrinsic video evidence of the crime committed.
Yes, cops will jump right on someone getting slapped. That definitely sounds like reality. Good call. Do you guys ever like, go outside?
Plenty of places this would be the most interesting call of the day for a police force and you'd have 5 squad cars show up.
Other places won't even bother responding to the call. Your mileage will greatly vary.
Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…
I'm curious how the engineers justify this. I'm generally interested. Please don't respond with how you think people justify, I want to hear the actual reasons. I'm tired of speculative responses to questions like these. Please do share if you've had to deal with similar situations too. And feel free to respond with green accounts. I legitimately want to understand why this happens. Not why from management, why from…
Most people are just trying to get through their day and not worry about ethical questions.
I'd say that's terrible, but I'm not confident I'd be a better person if my livelihood depended on doing that sort of work, though I hope I'd be better.
I'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Sh…
I really want to make a fake PSA that suggests anyone wearing the Meta glasses is probably a pervert and should be proactively avoided/shunned. This product cannot be allowed to exist in the type of world I want to live in. The power structure wants these to succeed in the market for so many horrific reasons and it will require some serious societal muscle to reject them.
Brought to you by the CEO that tapes the webcam on his laptop https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...
To be clear, he /puts tape over/ his webcam, that's very different from /taping/ (recording) the output of his webcam.