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

81–90 of 263 posts

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#81

Post by myrandomcomment »

So the tech geek in my wants to love these things. It is so SciFi future-y. I just cannot see using them.

1. I paid to have my eyes fixed so I do not need glasses. 2. I am not sure what value any of this brings. I have not see the killer app..

That being said there is an irrational part of me that wants to hold out for the in eyeball version of this. The real issue is the killer app, now that I think about it, is the brain interface where you can think about they information you want and have it come up. Until then...well.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#82

Post by andrewmcwatters »

xamuel wrote: post #19
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.

ES5 was a trainwreck, but ES2015+ is actually a very good language, if you take the time to study it in depth.

Lua is a much better embedded language.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#83

Post by klibertp »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #16
pi-squared wrote: post #9

Yeah, right - "no one will use it for every tweet notification, it will only provide contextual information" - it will be used for whatever people want to use it and we know what people want to use it for (porn).

It's a monochrome display. Pretty hard to use it for porn.

> Pretty hard to use it for porn.

It's not hard, it's an innate characteristic of porn. It's the inverse of rule 36 - as long as a communication channel exists, it will be used for porn, no matter how inconvenient it might be. Also, playing it straight, someone will have a fetish for porn over that channel, no way around it.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#84

Post by konart »

maltalex wrote: post #49
pavel_lishin wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, another father here: I'd love an always-on camera that I can tell to save the last 30 seconds of playback. There are a lot of moments I'd love to have on video or camera that are there-and-gone - even if I had my phone in my pocket, by the time I pulled it out, it would be too late.

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".

>Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you?

I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#86

Post by tomtoise »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #73

I want these, and then I want an app on them that will tell me if the person standing directly in front of me is on my LinkedIn/Facebook, and if so, what their name is and what they do.

That'd be quite the technological feat considering they don't currently have cameras built in.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#87

Post by form-poor »

syshum wrote: post #79
bjpirt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this comment is being downvoted - seems like a perfectly valid concern, particularly if you've read Rainbows End by Verner Vinge

Most people on HN believe that technology will only ever improve society, with very limited negative effects that can be mitigated or eliminated with more technology. Over all they see any negative effects (both current and future) caused by technological advancement to be a technological problem that can be eliminated In their minds the dystopian worlds depicted in scifi and fantasy just simply can not happen, "we w…

Again - Downvoted within a minute of posting... No replies to challenge the idea.

Dang, you really need to do something about this immature behavior.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#88

Post by keville »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #42
nogridbag wrote: post #37

Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually the best feature. You could really capture some great moments directly from your eye's perspective at the wink of an eye. My mother recently passed and out of all the photos and videos, my favorite was a 10 second video of me handing her flowers shot from Google Glasses. It looks like she's staring right back into my soul. I have a three mont…

Yup, another father here: I'd love an always-on camera that I can tell to save the last 30 seconds of playback. There are a lot of moments I'd love to have on video or camera that are there-and-gone - even if I had my phone in my pocket, by the time I pulled it out, it would be too late.

You have described the exact use case the Google Clips [0] camera seems to have been designed for.

[0] https://store.google.com/us/product/google_clips

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#89

Post by dsfyu404ed »

gpm wrote: post #72
maltalex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".

That camera is already pointed at me, via security cameras, strangers cell phones, etc. This just makes the situation symmetric. So yes, I would be fine with that.

No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on.

I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives.

You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there.

Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set.

Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.

Re: Intel made smart glasses that look normal

#90

Post by throwaway2048 »

konart wrote: post #84
maltalex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".

>Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

This is a common tactic in normalizing stuff people are uncomfortable with "its already been that way for X years why are you complaining now".

Besides the fact this statement is inaccurate (there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties), It in no way somehow justifies the situation as it stands, or will stand if these become popular.

Post reply on HN