The plausibility of an argument isn't a good measure to use because that's exactly the problem I have with this reporting, they come up with a plausible narrative 'a priori' that fits people's pre-conceptions and then justify it with random tidbits they can drudge up. Since people can naturally agree with such statements it makes correcting them substantially harder.

I know literally hundreds of people who use Glass daily and have never heard this once. Now it's on the front page of hacker news as a "thing". I don't doubt Chris is telling the truth about his experience. I'm just generally bothered by tech bloggers (in this case CNET) wanting to feed people intellectual junk food that they are looking for without any real concern for the damage it does to the industry they are reporting on. Reporting on legitimate problems with technology is beneficial because it opens a dialogue that ultimately makes it better, making "mountains out of mole hills" just distracts everyone and creates a fog of confusion.