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

961–970 of 993 posts

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#961

Post by olyjohn »

hipjiveguy wrote: post #958
jijijijij wrote: post #936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch Zuckerberg proudly showing how his hand gestures are hardly noticeable. So, so creepy. I wouldn’t be surprised if people wearing these would get confronted, denied entry or beaten up regularly. I can even totally see them ray-banned legally. At least in the EU. Much less with external video processing. Although I love the idea of AR and the cyberpunk flair, I don’t think these will be a thing because of privacy…

Agree - basically tech that can see what people do, is creepy. and as you suggest - others can engage, but we don't control that. Currently, it's somewhat obvious, but what happens when the tech is totally invisible? That day is coming very soon, within a decade, max, and you have to imagine every thing you ever do, in any place - even in the dark, is recorded. Arthur C Clarke, and Stephen Baxter wrote a book about t…

We know what happens when the tech is invisible. There are thousands of cameras doing facial recognition and license plate tracking and nobody cares. Everything we do is already recorded. Your phone location history, your vehicle location history, all the things you buy and shop for, your search history... But some random wears a pair of glasses and everybody loses their mind.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#962

Post by hipjiveguy »

olyjohn wrote: post #961
hipjiveguy wrote: post #958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree - basically tech that can see what people do, is creepy. and as you suggest - others can engage, but we don't control that. Currently, it's somewhat obvious, but what happens when the tech is totally invisible? That day is coming very soon, within a decade, max, and you have to imagine every thing you ever do, in any place - even in the dark, is recorded. Arthur C Clarke, and Stephen Baxter wrote a book about t…

We know what happens when the tech is invisible. There are thousands of cameras doing facial recognition and license plate tracking and nobody cares. Everything we do is already recorded. Your phone location history, your vehicle location history, all the things you buy and shop for, your search history... But some random wears a pair of glasses and everybody loses their mind.

for sure - it is inevitable, if you live in modern society. This is a past tense discussion, as it's already happening, even as I type this msg in reddit of course. The only way out is to leave and live in the woods pretty much, but that doesn't stop it, it only delays the engagement.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#963

Post by 48terry »

jackbrookes wrote: post #630
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…

This reads a bit like like a pre-PC take: "Why use a computer when a cookbook works fine?" Imagine it’s 1992: Cookbook: Open book, follow steps. PC: Turn on tower, wait for DOS, fiddle with floppies, pray the printer works, hope the shareware recipe isn’t weird. Not saying you're wrong but its easy to miss the big picture

Okay. Now: Imagine it's 2025:

Cookbook: Open book, follow steps.

New gadget from mult-billion dollar company: showcases on a live demonstration that it's a broken piece of crap that doesn't work.

Like, are we forgetting that it didn't work? It sucked at the job! Let's not what-if or have some imaginary "okay, but pretend it's actually good," deal here. It was bad!

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#964

Post by swordsmith »

spot wrote: post #666
swordsmith wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology was "invented" by CTRL-Labs like how OpenAI "invented" transformer-based language models.

Do you have any evidence or are you just going to go with repeating a bald-face lie?

lol you can go ask Thomas Rearden himself if Ctrl-labs "invented" gesture recognition from sEMG.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#965

Post by 1oooqooq »

paxys wrote: post #746
1oooqooq wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the glasses require a FACEBOOK account. they got away on whatsbook by not mentioning Facebook anywhere. including NOT requiring a Facebook account.

> the glasses require a FACEBOOK account They do not

do you have one?

all oculos needed one, so

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#966

Post by saberience »

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.

One, Zuck probably practiced for days for this moment and just managed 30 words per minute (which is slow, 1 word per two seconds is really bad).

Two, just try doing this now, moving your hand around like its writing with a pen and see how it feels (without holding a pen). It's super uncomfortable and feels really weird and also looks really weird.

People are really sensitive to looking weird and feeling weird and especially being singled out for being weird or looking weird. Also, there is a huge subset of society now who will not buy anything made by Meta. I think this product is doomed to failure honestly. Happy to eat my words when I see the subway filled with people wearing this dystopian specs.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#967

Post by saberience »

zmmmmm wrote: post #173
neilv wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But currently not very popular.

there are millions in the wild ... so maybe not super popular but it's above penetration of anything you would call a niche product

I got given them for free and I've never once turned them on. There's no way in this world I would ever wear a Meta produced personal life tracking device on my face (or anywhere else for that matter)

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#968

Post by 1gn15 »

jijijijij wrote: post #936
Vinnl wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's not so much about what those glasses could do for me if I were to wear them... It's what they do to me if someone else wears them.

Watch Zuckerberg proudly showing how his hand gestures are hardly noticeable. So, so creepy. I wouldn’t be surprised if people wearing these would get confronted, denied entry or beaten up regularly. I can even totally see them ray-banned legally. At least in the EU. Much less with external video processing. Although I love the idea of AR and the cyberpunk flair, I don’t think these will be a thing because of privacy…

> I wouldn’t be surprised if people wearing these would get confronted, denied entry or beaten up regularly. I can even totally see them ray-banned legally.

I really, really hope you're not advocating for that. That's straight up violence, not in self defence.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#969

Post by 1gn15 »

jonplackett wrote: post #532

I don’t see how this is any more socially acceptable than walking around with your camera on filming everyone all the time. The fact that it’s FB that can see through your eyes doesn’t make this any better.

It'll become as socially acceptable as installing a dashcam on your car. Or having a camera on your motorcycle helmet.

Re: Meta Ray-Ban Display

#970

Post by 1gn15 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #811
999900000999 wrote: post #806

Just a thought experiment, if I interview at Meta can I use these glasses ? "I ABSOLUTELY love your mission, and I envision everyone wearing these! It's cool if I use them during the interview, I feel this will help me understand the end user experience."

There's decorum. You can wear the glasses, but it doesn't mean you should be recording confidential meetings, anymore than you should be recording your partner during an argument. Just because your iPhone has a video function doesn't mean it has to be on all the time.

And just to add on, if someone replies "but you can see if someone is video recording": not audio recording. That one is completely invisible.
Post reply on HN