551–560 of 870 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Terms like "hidden" and "see everything" are in a title are clickbait. The one containing "hidden" is the one you apparently changed it to originally - I don't think GP can, nor has any reason to - so you initially changed it to.. clickbait? It seems a serious reach to call "see everything" clickbait. > First-ever in-utero stem cell therapy for fetal spina bifida repair is safe, study finds Currently 9th on the fro…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how a parent can be OK non-consenually uploading pictures of their children's real faces to an ad driven AI company famous for abusing people's data and manipulating children on their platforms.
I don't get how private businesses allow these. It's as creepy as Google Glass, yet we don't see the same pushback. Is it because younger people don't care about privacy anymore?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Terms like "hidden" and "see everything" are in a title are clickbait. The one containing "hidden" is the one you apparently changed it to originally - I don't think GP can, nor has any reason to - so you initially changed it to.. clickbait? It seems a serious reach to call "see everything" clickbait. > First-ever in-utero stem cell therapy for fetal spina bifida repair is safe, study finds Currently 9th on the fro…
Can we discuss the issue without being accusatory and interrogatory. The point of the guidelines (about titles and everything else) is so we can discuss things curiously, without getting riled up. OK I've looked in the logs and here's what happened. The originally submitted title was: The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything . That title was created by the submitter; it's not the original title and…
Workers annotating data for AI might see sensitive content captured by smart glasses. But the leap from that to “we see everything” and framing it like some dystopian panopticon mirrors the early Google Glass panic, where the concerns often outran what the device actually could do.
Legitimate concerns shouldn’t be dismissed, but neither should they be inflated to create a new “Glass-forked-into-Big-Brother” narrative unless the evidence genuinely supports that level of risk ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…
As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.
It is perhaps not, and perhaps a bit disingenuous to claim so in good faith, as if it exceeds your abilities to search for the list of facebook scandals in the decades following and see that the behavior is often consistent with this quote. Even if you choose to ignore all that, it's also not very reasonable to expect troves of juicier quotes after all the C-suites, lawyers, and HR departments showed up locked everything down with corporate speak. I'm sure if facebook were to be so kind as to leak all the messages and audio of zuck's internal comms since that time people would be able to have many other juicy quotes to work with.
It is often referenced because it's the best quote that represents the trailblazing era of preying on users' undying thirst for convenience in order to package their private data as a product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how a parent can be OK non-consenually uploading pictures of their children's real faces to an ad driven AI company famous for abusing people's data and manipulating children on their platforms.
I don't get how private businesses allow these. It's as creepy as Google Glass, yet we don't see the same pushback. Is it because younger people don't care about privacy anymore?
Don't you need to obtain consent before filming random people in the street? I already feel uncomfortable when someone takes a photo in public and I happen to be in it, but this type of device takes things to an entirely different level. With smart glasses, there's no visible cue that you're being recorded. No phone held up, no camera in sight. I'm questioning the legality of this in Europe, where privacy laws tend t…
I mean, otherwise countries couldn’t use security cameras
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know what the downvote is about. I’ve not said anything for or against this tech or the company that makes it. I just don’t think it’s valuable to inform your world view on tech takes that are old enough to be taking the practice SAT.
> I don’t know what the downvote is about. > screeching > libertarian allergic reaction to technology
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we discuss the issue without being accusatory and interrogatory. The point of the guidelines (about titles and everything else) is so we can discuss things curiously, without getting riled up. OK I've looked in the logs and here's what happened. The originally submitted title was: The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything . That title was created by the submitter; it's not the original title and…
Isn’t “nothing is truly safe” a common saying on HN? Safe is an absolute term and since nothing can be safe people usually avoid using safe as a standalone attribution to something. It is usually qualified in some way.
Safe is generally a gradable adjective [1], though can be non-gradable in certain contexts (like programming).
We are getting into the weeds though, aren't we?
[1] https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-gramma...