Intel made smart glasses that look normal

The trouble is in resolving that against the kind of culture that has fostered things like the "creepshots" subreddit.

Smartphones (and GoPros) have already shown the value of being able to film and share more of our lives, but they've also shown the downsides of having our graceless moments broadcast to the world, or the many events that are now impossible to enjoy in a sea of smartphones held aloft, or, if you're an attractive woman, far more of you put online for other people to gawk at.

Until those abuses are resolved somehow, people are going to resist having a little camera attached to everyone's face.

Regarding an always on camera - I'll second other comments in warning there are just so many concerns with abuse, I don't see how to get around those.

It's probably better for you -- and for her -- not to have so many photos.

The negativity around Google Glasses amounted to a mismanaged launch. iPhones were introduced to a public already familiar 1st-hand with cell phones, camera phones, and digital cameras. The public was already passingly familiar with smart phones. Google Glasses were introduced with maximum hype to as many early adopters as possible, with no thought as to how it could backfire, and how to navigate those pitfalls. In retrospect, is it any wonder that there were so many inadvisable actions, all adding up to a societal backlash?

Google Glasses should have been rolled out to far fewer people, and in a form factor almost indistinguishable from ordinary eyeglasses.

That should be, "you could really capture some great moments directly on film..."

You already captured these moments; you were there; they are ingrained in your memory.

> My mother recently passed and out of all the photos [..] staring right back into my soul."

First of all, my sincere condolences.

Again, you were there. That moment, that specific wonderful moment you witnessed, nice as it is to have something to remember it by, it feels very personal, not something you could share unless you were there, and you were you.

Back in the days of photo-lab development, there existed magic moments caught on camera as well, but it was the luck of the draw. Since they were so rare, there was no fear of missing out, but any such moment caught on camera was all the more special for it.

Maybe this fear of missing out on your own life, pushing one to commit everything to camera, comes at the cost of actually missing out. Life is made better by witnessing these magic moments, but I'm unsure the drive to capture them all enhances the experience, witnessed and remembered in that particular fashion by no one but yourself.

My main problem is what does it give me over wearing a smart watch? The only thing I can think of is being slightly more discreet and the "gesture" not being rude to activate when you are in company. That is something I found out quickly when I started wearing an Apple Watch - even if you are just checking a text message it appears you are checking the time and want to leave. Since then I have greatly cut down on notifications going to my watch, and have even fewer that even ping on my phone.

To me, having a camera on it is what would make it compelling, but at the same time make it creepy. Say being able show driving directions overlaid on the actual road, versus some floating text. Or you sit down at a desk with just a keyboard and mouse and your "displays" are only shown in your field of view - and you can customize, move and resize them as you wish.

From the article:

>> It projects a rectangle of red text and icons down in the lower right of your visual field. But when I wasn’t glancing down in that direction, the display wasn’t there. My first thought was that the frames were misaligned.

The HUD in Google Glass was also outside of your normal field of view and for certain things this was a poor experience. For example, using Google maps integration I felt like I was taking my eyes off the road and felt safer simply using my smartphone mounted to my windshield.

As someone who wears glasses, I find it impossible to run with them because of the movement or them just falling off. Are people who wear glasses able to run with them - am I doing something wrong?

They should have looked at a larger sample size. Red is used in rangefinder viewfinders for over 30+ years. Leica M240 has red and white as options. Red is by far the best from all standpoints - contrast, legibility and versatility.

Red dot sights are used in firearms and they are also by far superior to any other color.

I am doubtful of Google engineers and whether they put enough thought into exploring colors by using a larger sample size or cross checking different industries.

[1]https://www.wareable.com/smartwatches/best-smart-analogue-wa...

Now you mention it, probably...

Google products come with visible and invisible strings; this, at least for now, doesn't.

For the glasses, the laser is probably being scanned using a mems mirror (like how a DLP tv works, sorta), and modulated in brightness periodically to create the pixels. Since there's only one "point" of contact between your lens and the beam, the lens doesn't distort the beam like it would an image. That's where the idea of focus comes in. If you were looking at a photograph with your eye, there would be many sources and colors of light. Since the lens refracts incoming light based on direction, position, and color, your lens' job is to make sure the "pixels" of the photograph stay spatially organized with respect to each other. That's what being in focus means. And since the laser has only one color and one direction, all that light stays together and makes a nice dot on your retina. The only thing left to do is make a correction to the overall distortion pattern your lens introduces ,which is similar for pretty much everyone. Same reason you need to add barrel distortion before sending video to an HMD. I think that's what they were showing with that "warping" red image of the glasses' display.

bufferless - Don't wait for an image, just stream pixels as fast as you find them

clockless - No world "ticks", the world is an append-only log of "percepts"¹ which can be projected onto any time.

stochastic - Don't wait for certainty about a pixel, just push out the most probable ones first

signed distance field - Afformentioned "percepts" don't have well defined boundaries like a polygon, instead "fields" centered on a point describe how light moves around them. Any two fields can be trivially summed, so you can ignore most of a scene when searching for a specific pixel near a small number of local fields.

Together they allow you to supply the eyes with nearly zero-latency data with arbitrarily low computing power.

¹ As an aside, there is evidence humans don't see a "now" tick either, we perceive "fields out of time" directly, log them, and interpolate their relationship to "now" thereafter, such that we feel that we are "seeing" something which our eyes have already stopped reporting about. Thus SDFs and clockless rendering are a natural fit and map well to human perception.

It would probably be too heavy, part of their 'non-intrusiveness' goal is to make it be very light.

Another proposal I had was a bracelet that would sense capacitance changes in the hand upon fingers touching each other; this way you could have a 12-key "keyboard" on the phalanges of the non-opposable fingers (3 phalanges x 4 fingers) touch-able by the thumb.

Such technologies would require minimal power input and provide good interaction with any headset; but at the time Intel were not interested in the research needed to build a prototype.

This is already the case.