Hacker News Reader

Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

I'm not finding it to be any different from "Four eyes!"

In this instance, it's directed at people who are literally at the top of the world, having amassed almost unthinkable power and influence, and want to start a fashion trend specifically to grow their business empires.

So yeah, it's a tiny bit different than bullying a classmate for having bad eyesight.

> it's directed at people who are literally at the top of the world

The very first sentence in the article associates people who wear these with "pervs".

So no, this is not merely directed at "the top of the world".

As an aside: VRs were "the cool thing" in the 90's and 00's. They never became practical, and fell out of favor. "Normal" people never stopped mocking those who used them. Now that Meta has made glasses that actually come close to looking normal, tech folks mock back ...? I just don't get it.

Yes, I get all the privacy concerns. But making fun because of very subjective reasons like appearance? It undercuts all the privacy concerns.

People need to grow up.

This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses. They're marketed at people who already have screens and better cameras in their pockets and on their wrists. "Clandestine" use cases are the only application here.

Ugh, trying not to get baited into stuff like this but -

There are absolutely non-pervy reasons why your hands might be occupied but you want to record a video.

This is why gopros exist.

I mean, this is logically no different than saying that we shouldn't use smartphone cameras because DSLRs exist.

It is, because when you're using a smartphone camera you're not trying to hide the fact that you're filming, or at least it's harder to do so. There are already ways to film without having to hold a camera, and those ways produce a better product. The advantage of the glasses is you can be a creep but be less obvious about it.

- glasses are only for "clandestine" use

- any use case I could suggest will be dismissed because other tools exist

- those tools are "better" partly because they're not covert

- which re-asserts that covertness is the glasses' only distinguishing feature

- therefore the only use is being a creep

Am I reading this right? If so, it's circular, and I don't think I can do much more than just point that out.

Ah yes, because DSLRs are hands free?

I agree but I also feel like surely these are so few and far between that no reasonable person would introduce a new tech device into their day-to-day wear for this purpose?

You really just don’t require constant recording of your surroundings, in a way that is not socially acceptable, in order to get around your hands being full.

In the situations where we DO need that capability, we already have solutions, like go pros. What makes this different is that these are for all the time, and targeted at candid strangers in public. Not, like, the mountain bike path. So, to me, that makes them fundamentally perverted.

> This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses.

Have you even bothered researching it?

Can you please go and respond to the comments in this submission and let them know you are denying their reality?

Use a GoPro or something. You'll get better quality video and you won't look like you're trying to hide the fact that you're filming.

So it's clear you're not going to bother researching into why people use it.

No, I don't need to research it. I have all the evidence I need.

> The very first sentence in the article associates people who wear these with "pervs".

But they're literally the target market. Nobody else needs a hidden camera on their face.

zuck is trying to push bad, ugly glasses to profit at the expense of causing nefarious social impact. the blog is mocking the ugliness of the glasses. it represents how out of touch zuck is. i’m not sure how you got to “four eyes” from there

> zuck is trying to push bad, ugly glasses

...

> i’m not sure how you got to “four eyes” from there

I'm guessing you're younger than me. In my youth, having glasses meant being ugly.

i know what it means. you’re projecting something completely inappropriate, i’m guessing from your own life, onto the blogs criticism.

It doesn't mean that anymore. But having "smart glasses" does mean "jerk".

You use normal glasses to see better. You buy a smart glass to record people without their knowledge. The only thing similar in these objects is that your wear them on your face.

although it's true and funny that rich assholes often have terrible taste, it's important that criticism of pervert glasses doesn't make their ugliness load-bearing. what happens if the next gen looks good, we're suddenly okay with them?

i dont think the blog is proposing a long-term criteria. the ugliness is funny and worth noting now because its currently happening and a great symbol of them pushing plainly horrible stuff down our throats

It's not about taste! They're literally too big to function effectively! If you bed over to look at something they will fall off your face. It's like offering running shoes with kilogram-weight batteries on the bottom, a basic failure to understand the problem.

I can't believe people are trying to make excuses for a product that is clearly not ready for consumer applications.

Prescription glasses are a medical device that corrects for a disability.

This shit ain't it.

Why are you trying so hard to shoehorn inappropriate criticism of people with disabilities... Into appropriate criticism of this technocrap?

... These are people with fine vision, wearing ugly glasses by choice. It's not at all comparable.

I can criticize anyone's choices. Needing glasses is not a choice. Wearing Meta creep-shot raybans is a choice i will never stop criticizing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com