6 ms·
I understand the value proposition. My problem is that people using them are offloading the cost onto others who have not agreed to be so exposed. If it were p
by JohnFen 2y ago
I understand the value proposition. My problem is that people using them are offloading the cost onto others who have not agreed to be so exposed.
If it were possible to use something like these without throwing everyone they interact with under the bus in terms of privacy and security, I'd have no problem with them.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y agoI guess I'm not comfortable with the idea that a blind person should proverbially "take one for the team" while everyone else should not. An equivalent device not attached to meta would be great. Does one exist?
- AndrewKemendo 2y agoYes - xreal I use mine all the time for mostly watching movies or gaming but sometimes work They are legitimately one of the best devices I have and I’ve been in AR a long time
- BugsJustFindMe 2y agoAFAICT, none of the XReal glasses have an integrated camera, and the accessory camera on their website just says "coming soon". Without a camera, it's not suitable for the purpose.
- wlesieutre 2y agoThat’s a totally different product. The Meta glasses don’t have a screen, only camera paired with voice UI. If we’re looking for a head-mounted device that’s useful for blind people, taking away the camera and intelligence and replacing them with a screen definitely is not it. You’re losing the useful parts and replacing them with a useless one.
- Philpax 2y agoYou've suggested a device that takes away the one thing they need (the ability to perceive the world without sight) and replaced it with the one thing they don't need (the ability to overlay content onto sight).
- JohnFen 2y agoWhy is it any better to force everyone else to "take one for the team"? What I object to is other people forcing me to be exposed to threats against my will.
- wilg 2y agoI mean there is no cost for others, though. You don't have a right to not be "exposed". If you think the way we handle laws around photography or whatever should be changed, we have a whole democracy for brokering that. (Or at least we did until very recently.)
- JohnFen 2y agoYou're arguing legalities. That's orthogonal to my objection. Plenty of bad things are legal.
- wilg 2y agoYou didn't really specify what's bad, and I don't think the current law on photography (or whatever you're worried about) is an issue so I'm arguing both ethics/morals and legalities.