8 ms·

I am actually pretty shocked at the responses here on HN, of all places. Not because, as technologists we should all automatically love any new technology, but

I am actually pretty shocked at the responses here on HN, of all places. Not because, as technologists we should all automatically love any new technology, but because, as technologists we should have perspective on its inexorable march. How many times have we laughed at definitive statements, pontificating on this or that newfangled thing, that were proven to be wildly off-the-mark only a few years later? How many times have we facepalmed at the print media's desperate attempts to combat or stave off digital publishing? Whether it's Google Glass or something else, "invasive" wearable tech will be utterly pedestrian in a decade or two. Similarly, privacy is going away, and future generations won't care. You can already see it with the kids. It's just the obvious extrapolation of computing technology, and it won't be stopped by the old guard. If you disagree, care to put our thoughts in a time capsule and see who looks more foolish in 10 years?

3pt14159 13y ago
It isn't the invasiveness of glass that is the trouble. It's the minimum focal length of the eye and the speed of focusing. I want an overlay that is in focus, not to read email while I'm walking my buddy's dog. Once glass is directly on the optic nerve things will be better.
- r0s 13y ago
  Projected onto the retina is more likely.
- d23 13y ago
  > Once glass is directly on the optic nerve things will be better. I really hope we get to see biological interfaces in our lifetimes. If there's a singularity, I'm guessing that's where it'll begin to take off.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Unless there's a big advance in magnetic field manipulation, I doubt it. Basically - unless we find a way to inject data non-invasively using an advanced version of transcranial magnetic stimuation. The basic problem with bioscience - in fact anything that's not computer science, is you can't just hit "recompile" when you screw up. We can't just replace an optic nerve that goes bad, in fact anytime you do even minor surgery you run the risk of an infection that wipes out whole systems of the body from a tiny mistake. Abstraction is a big problem, basically.
- pkinsky 13y ago
  I'm waiting for contact lenses with displays and gaze tracking.
r0s 13y ago
Just look around at people wearing headphones right now. Have attitudes really changed? As a technologist, do you see someone with headphones and think "progressive"? Of course not, you meerly ignore it unless there's a practical reason to care. Someone on the bus with headphones is likely ignoring everyone else. Someone crossing the street with headphones is likely not paying enough attention to traffic. Is glass different? We seem to forget that headphones themselves have drastically evolved in style and shape over the years, some designs were almost universally derided. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here though, glass is far more similar to bluetooth headsets. How are those aging? Do the kids think it's cool? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess not. You can put that guess in the time capsule.
- d23 13y ago
  > Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here though, glass is far more similar to bluetooth headsets. How are those aging? Do the kids think it's cool? No, because they have no use for them. There's nothing inherently goofy about them other than that society hasn't made them the norm. It certainly could be said that staring glazed-face at a glowing rectangle in front of you looks dorky as well. But smart phones have become a damn useful device, and that's why no one thinks twice. Only time will tell with Glass.
  - r0s 13y ago
    Glass and bluetooth have the same problem, they are peripheral, accessory devices. That's what makes them uncool, they're unnecessary. Maybe someday glass will cut the rope of being paired with a phone, but not anytime soon.
    - User8712 13y ago
      It also seems rude to be wearing a headset while socializing. People take their headphones out of their ears. If you have a bluetooth headset, I feel like I'm not getting your full attention. Even if you're not on a call, I still feel like I come second. It would be the same with Glass. If I'm talking to someone and they're wearing Glass, it seems rude. If they glance to the screen, even more so. Then, it's unnecessary at times like you said. I think this is what looks smug, you're walking around with something on your head, that you might not be actively using. Or with bluetooth, you have an earpiece, but you're not in a call. It looks like you're wearing it, just to show it off, and it seems like you're trying hard to impress. With headphones, we make the assumption you're listening to music when they're in your ear. People enjoy their technology, but they like to pretend they're free from it. A friend posted on Facebook the other day how everyone is always on their tablet or laptop, and 'gah, can't people just put their phone or tablet down for one day and look up'. But... she was on Facebook writing that message. I get that feeling from a lot of people. They keep their phone close, but they don't want to look like they depend on it. They want instant e-mail notifications or texts, but, they don't want to give off that image. It's not an attractive quality to always be playing with your phone or attached at the hip with technology. It's anti-social. That's a negative. When you're wearing something like Glass, you give off that impression. And lastly, with Glass, you're literally pointing a camera at my face, and could be taking photos, and recording audio or video without my knowledge. That's a little uncomfortable. Personally, I think it's going to fail, and I wouldn't be surprised if I never see a single person wearing the device. However, I applaud them for taking the risk, since the technology and advances will be used in some way. Could it be used by doctors to stay hands free? Could it be used on motorcycles, so you can see your speed or a rearview image in the corner of your eye? Does it work well just for around the house, so I can do housework, and get notifications? Or can I cook with dirty hands, and see my recipe, or cooking time remaining? I think there are uses for it, I think others will see what they've accomplished and apply it in some way. However, as a device that everyone will be wearing while walking down the street, I just don't see it happening.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hobs 13y ago
I agree with you on everything except the privacy part, as people grow older they guard their privacy much more than as a youth. I think it will be like everything with technology, we will be more the same, and more different. People might share some information freely as a bird that we would be horrified at, but I don't think the intrinsic need for privacy will leave society on some level (for a host of reasons). Maybe this will manifest into something like "For Us The Living" with a public sphere and a private sphere. Go outside and you are 100% monitored by thousands of sources, but in your home or private dwelling things turn off. Social mores evolve slower than technology, but they do evolve.
- resu_nimda 13y ago
  I agree, I probably should have qualified with "in public", there will be some areas of relative privacy. There will still be a security community; people who are skilled and need true privacy will be able to find it, bit I think they will be a small minority. Already many people are sharing from inside the sphere - data, media, text, etc.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  I think concepts of privacy are changing a lot and what's perceived as youth being cavalier about their privacy is just a reflection of a significantly different perspective. Mostly I think kids are much more aware (though maybe not in an entirely conscious way) of holding on to several identities of varying degrees of privacy. They're better at segregating their lives into several online identities in addition to the one they physically inhabit at school/work/in public. Not to say they are always successful at maintaining those boundaries. Really no one could be entirely. But they are much more active about it and it's a big part of their lives.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
Sure, put me in a time capsule. Personal video "always-on" cameras will NOT be pervasive in 10 years. Put me down for saying that where ever you wish.
maxerickson 13y ago
I think the taboo will fade. I just hope the tech fades with it. Not away, but into the background. I'd rather have a pen that can draw a diagram on my workpiece tucked in my pocket than I would some geegaw strapped to my head all the time.
- aestra 13y ago
  Remember how dumb people used to look walking around with bluetooth headsets? Especially weird when they were holding a conversations and looked like they were talking to themselves? Has the taboo really faded with that?
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    Well, for the sake of arguing about it I would say that the earpiece taboo has become equal to the talking in public taboo.
gone35 13y ago
You might well be right in extrapolating future trends from past ones. Don't be too confident though: predictions in general are very hard, especially about the future [1]. [1] http://andrewgelman.com/2014/01/21/commissar-traffic-presents-latest-five-year-plan/ http://andrewgelman.com/2014/01/21/commissar-traffic-present...
lotso 13y ago
>privacy is going away, and future generations won't care. I think the explosion of Snapchat shows that isn't necessarily true.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- AngrySkillzz 13y ago
  You misread.
wpietri 13y ago
Might I suggest putting money down? http://longbets.org/ http://longbets.org/ I built the site ten years ago, and the Long Now Foundation has plenty of other things going on, so I'm pretty confident that this will do for your 10-year bet. If you find a challenger, I'm glad to help you two negotiate a testable prediction and get the bet up on the site.
- resu_nimda 13y ago
  I actually thought of that site after I posted. In hindsight I was unnecessarily...cavalier...but I would be willing to work something out.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    My long bet is that longbets will be gone in 10 years.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      I will take that bet. Name your stakes and we will put it up on the site pronto.
      - jrockway 13y ago
        What could go wrong? Done!
        wpietri 13y ago
        Ok! Email me with your proposed prediction text (e.g., "LongBets will be gone in 10 years"), the wager you'd like, and the charity you'd like the winnings to go to if you win. (To stay legal under US law, bet winnings must go to US-registered charities.) My email: domain is williampietri.com; account is my first name. We'll sort it out from there.
- eevilspock 13y ago
  Wow. I've had for many years an idea I've called GoodBets to get people who argue on the web to put their money where their mouth is, with the money going to the winner's choice of charity, just as you have with Long Bets. GoodBets would integrate with comment systems, such as this one on HN, so if someone makes some unequivocal statement you think is baloney, you can challenge them with a GoodBet in your reply. They can accept or back down. The benefits are two-fold: discourse would improve[1] and charities would benefit. The GoodBet website would have two leaderboards: users with most winning bets by dollar and users who donated the most by dollar. That way even the losers win, encouraging participation. Any chance you could adopt my ideas, either into Long Bets or a fork of it? [1] Partisan Bias Diminishes When Partisans Pay. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/55494.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/554...
d23 13y ago
I remember thinking how stupid the iPad was when it came out. It's just an iPhone with a magnifying glass attached, after all. Then I got one as a gift, and the appeal became immediate. There's something about the need to criticize that seems inherent to humanity -- or at least the HN comments section.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I remember thinking how stupid the iPad was when it came out. It's just an iPhone with a magnifying glass attached, after all. No, it's an iPhone with a much bigger screen real estate. Which changes all kinds of things, user experience and UI design wise. Things that are awkward on small screen are easily done on a larger screen. If it was just a magnified iPhone it would be stupid. Now, what's really bad is how many tech pundits though of it exactly like that...
  - gcb0 13y ago
    nah. the phone is actually easier to hold/use. the ONLY reason i use the tablets more is battery life. Given equivalent processing power/battery life, nobody would choose a tablet. the screen real state simply does not compensate for the lack of public use, uncomfortable long session use, etc. give me a phone with decent battery life, and i won't even mind the occasional magnifying glass attached to it.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >nah. the phone is actually easier to hold/use. That's just like, err, your outlier opinion man. Now, the phone might be easier to hold with one hand, but the iPad is easier/better for lots of tasks. From reading books and comics or watching videos to using music creation apps, drawing apps etc. Anything where screen real estate matters. >the ONLY reason i use the tablets more is battery life. Given equivalent processing power/battery life, nobody would choose a tablet. Wrong again. Not to mention that millions of people by Wi-Fi only iPads, and when using an iPhone in that way (with the 3G/4G turned off), you get pretty much the same battery life. Or you know, those people could get an extra battery juice pack for their iPhone, but they don't.
gfodor 13y ago
A lot of people who knew the iPhone and iPad were going to be huge also think Glass is doomed for the consumer market. Sometimes the way you look matters. See: the Segway. It's a threshold. Did headphones really make you look as dorky as the Segway does to your contemporaries? Doubtful. Does Glass? I think it comes close.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  And I'm sure a lot of people who thought the iphone and the ipad were incredibly stupid also think glass is incredibly stupid. And of course there are people who thought the iphone and ipad would be massive successes who think the same of glass. Your ability to predict what amount to fashion trends in the future is not particularly related to your ability to do so in the past.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Your ability to predict what amount to fashion trends in the future is not particularly related to your ability to do so in the past. I don't know, your ability to predict trends in the past sounds like the best predictor of your future ability. Except if you think that there's no such an abilily, and it's all random guesses and luck.
    - stormbrew 13y ago
      It is the best predictor, obviously, but I'm saying that doesn't really mean much. Fashion is fickle. And the thing is, above and beyond that, 10 years from now the tech that's evolved from Glass will look about as much like Glass as the iphone looks like my first touchscreen phone (behold: http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000053553.JPG?0.005674472240123407 http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000053553.JPG?0...)
      - Raphael 13y ago
        Bingo. The first consumer computer glasses may not be a mass hit. But persistence, innovation, tweaking, and competition will sooner or later hit on a design that sells.
TacticalCoder 13y ago
I don't disagree with what you say but you wrote: "Similarly, privacy is going away,..." Privacy is definitely going away in the public space. But I'm not so sure privacy in, well, the private space is going away. We may even see a movement --heck, it may even get a name one of these days-- for apartments and houses built in a way that some rooms get a "100% no intrusive technology inside" treatment. For example you may have an intelligent fridge (so that it can send spam as already happened and why not be part of a botnet mining bitcoins), intelligent TV which can report your mood to advertizers, etc. but have, say, a bathroom with no intelligent lightswitches (because even lightswitches will surely have NSA-friendly webcams and microphones), with no WiFi and just a "detector" at the door ringing a bell in case you try to enter with a smartphone / smartglasses / whatever. Same for the bathroom and the toilets. I don't know about you, but as long as the state isn't forcing me to have a webcam and a microphone in my bedroom and in my bathroom, I'll still have privacy there. I see more and more people now putting a little piece of post-it on the webcam of their laptop (e.g. MacBook, on which there's no physical slider to obscure the cam). In other words: as long as I'm still a free man, I get to decide where, on my private property, I do still have privacy. And I invite you in ten years in my property and you'll tell me if the NSA can switch on a webcam and a microphone in my bedroom or not ; )
- resu_nimda 13y ago
  Haha, I have the post-it, colored with sharpie to blend in because people pointed it out and chuckled at it. I really don't see a smartphone detector in the bathroom, but maybe you just turn it off, I don't think the bathroom is an issue. The bedroom maybe, but I would assume most smartphone owners sleep with theirs in the room, among other devices. The overall connectivity of households and their data to "the grid" is increasing rapidly. There will be some privacy, it's not a 24/7 visual feed, but the government, Google, Facebook, hackers, et al. will be doing what they do, and people will be giving it to them.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I use black electrical tape.
nitrogen 13y ago
Similarly, privacy is going away, and future generations won't care. You can already see it with the kids. This keeps being said, but it doesn't have to be that way and may not stay that way for long. For one thing, if kids were so careless about privacy, they wouldn't be using Snapchat.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Privacy is a major driver behind the slowing teen use of Facebook. All these kids friended anyone and everyone, and now Facebook feels more public than private to them--so they use it less. My younger siblings and their friends each have around 1500 to 2000 friends on Facebook. They hardly use their accounts anymore for that reason.
- rprospero 13y ago
  It comes down to a question of whether kids are careless about privacy or whether they don't care about privacy. We'll take my great-grandfather for an example. He'd be horrified about how careless I've been about protecting our racial purity. How could I be so careless as to marry a women without realizing that she's not only a dirty papist, but also one of those swarthy French‽ However, the truth was not that I was careless, but that I didn't care. I know all of these things, but they didn't matter to me. Similarly, I know someone who broke federal privacy laws with respect to my personal information. I could report this individual, but the simple fact is that I don't care. If he'd posted the entire data set to wikileaks, I still wouldn't care. It's not that I have nothing to hide - there's some pretty embarrassing stuff in that data set. However, everything in that data set, good or bad, is true.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    The only way I could see privacy not mattering in the future is if knowledge stops being equivalent to power. Even if everyone knows everything about everyone, I don't see that knowledge ceasing to be useful for manipulation. The important question to me, then, isn't whether the embarrassing (or mundane) secrets are true, but whether they would give someone the power to manipulate the subject of those secrets, or to manipulate others with respect to the subject of the secrets.
coldtea 13y ago
>I am actually pretty shocked at the responses here on HN, of all places. Not because, as technologists we should all automatically love any new technology, but because, as technologists we should have perspective on its inexorable march. Perspective also means opinion. Not just accepting the "inexorable march" as fate.
wisty 13y ago
> Whether it's Google Glass or something else, "invasive" wearable tech will be utterly pedestrian in a decade or two. You can wear an iPhone. When's the last time you saw someone photographing their food in a restaurant, then tweeting while their friends checked their email?
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
> privacy is going away The argument that fundamental civil rights will simply disappear in the face of "technological progress" seems utterly vapid to me. In fact, it sounds like a fundamentalist ideology. This argument is a thin is "we have nukes, so let's blow up stuff". This is not technology that will make certain jobs or products obsolete. This is not technology that will simply change the way we do things. This is not technology that merely affects our social interactions. This is technology that robs people of fundamental freedoms, freedoms that we've not only had since home sapiens first appeared, but freedoms which we have explicitly protected through laws and constitutions as technological progress has made it easier to take away that freedom. A society where everyone can be recorded on video 24/7 without restrictions is not a free society. If this is truly the "inexorable march of technology", I might consider becoming a Luddite after all. The technology of Google Glass is technological progress, just like printing a gun with a 3D printer is technological progress. I don't think that automatically means that in 10 years time we'll be walking around shooting at everything that moves with either.
7952 13y ago
I agree with the need for perspective. Sixty years ago people thought that kitchens would have a robot to do the cooking for you but instead we got microwave ovens and ready meals. You get the same effect (easy meals) just through a different mechanism. The important things is solving a particular problem or need; not the actual technology. In that sense Google Now is the pivotal technology for Google, not glass.
gaius 13y ago
You can already see it with the kids. We are into the realm of game theory here. You can say "I don't care if my embarrassing photos/controversial opinions/whatever are public" only if everyone agrees the same thing at the same time. Because otherwise, you will find yourself competing with someone whose aren't public, in front of someone who does care. That might be a manager, it might be the electorate.
bct 13y ago
> we should have perspective on its inexorable march. There is no such thing. There are only specific technologies. Some march inexorably, some are jokes (if they're remembered at all).

3pt14159 13y ago

It isn't the invasiveness of glass that is the trouble. It's the minimum focal length of the eye and the speed of focusing. I want an overlay that is in focus, not to read email while I'm walking my buddy's dog. Once glass is directly on the optic nerve things will be better.

r0s 13y ago
Projected onto the retina is more likely.
d23 13y ago
> Once glass is directly on the optic nerve things will be better. I really hope we get to see biological interfaces in our lifetimes. If there's a singularity, I'm guessing that's where it'll begin to take off.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Unless there's a big advance in magnetic field manipulation, I doubt it. Basically - unless we find a way to inject data non-invasively using an advanced version of transcranial magnetic stimuation. The basic problem with bioscience - in fact anything that's not computer science, is you can't just hit "recompile" when you screw up. We can't just replace an optic nerve that goes bad, in fact anytime you do even minor surgery you run the risk of an infection that wipes out whole systems of the body from a tiny mistake. Abstraction is a big problem, basically.
pkinsky 13y ago
I'm waiting for contact lenses with displays and gaze tracking.

r0s 13y ago

Just look around at people wearing headphones right now. Have attitudes really changed? As a technologist, do you see someone with headphones and think "progressive"? Of course not, you meerly ignore it unless there's a practical reason to care. Someone on the bus with headphones is likely ignoring everyone else. Someone crossing the street with headphones is likely not paying enough attention to traffic. Is glass different? We seem to forget that headphones themselves have drastically evolved in style and shape over the years, some designs were almost universally derided. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here though, glass is far more similar to bluetooth headsets. How are those aging? Do the kids think it's cool? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess not. You can put that guess in the time capsule.

d23 13y ago
> Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here though, glass is far more similar to bluetooth headsets. How are those aging? Do the kids think it's cool? No, because they have no use for them. There's nothing inherently goofy about them other than that society hasn't made them the norm. It certainly could be said that staring glazed-face at a glowing rectangle in front of you looks dorky as well. But smart phones have become a damn useful device, and that's why no one thinks twice. Only time will tell with Glass.
- r0s 13y ago
  Glass and bluetooth have the same problem, they are peripheral, accessory devices. That's what makes them uncool, they're unnecessary. Maybe someday glass will cut the rope of being paired with a phone, but not anytime soon.
  - User8712 13y ago
    It also seems rude to be wearing a headset while socializing. People take their headphones out of their ears. If you have a bluetooth headset, I feel like I'm not getting your full attention. Even if you're not on a call, I still feel like I come second. It would be the same with Glass. If I'm talking to someone and they're wearing Glass, it seems rude. If they glance to the screen, even more so. Then, it's unnecessary at times like you said. I think this is what looks smug, you're walking around with something on your head, that you might not be actively using. Or with bluetooth, you have an earpiece, but you're not in a call. It looks like you're wearing it, just to show it off, and it seems like you're trying hard to impress. With headphones, we make the assumption you're listening to music when they're in your ear. People enjoy their technology, but they like to pretend they're free from it. A friend posted on Facebook the other day how everyone is always on their tablet or laptop, and 'gah, can't people just put their phone or tablet down for one day and look up'. But... she was on Facebook writing that message. I get that feeling from a lot of people. They keep their phone close, but they don't want to look like they depend on it. They want instant e-mail notifications or texts, but, they don't want to give off that image. It's not an attractive quality to always be playing with your phone or attached at the hip with technology. It's anti-social. That's a negative. When you're wearing something like Glass, you give off that impression. And lastly, with Glass, you're literally pointing a camera at my face, and could be taking photos, and recording audio or video without my knowledge. That's a little uncomfortable. Personally, I think it's going to fail, and I wouldn't be surprised if I never see a single person wearing the device. However, I applaud them for taking the risk, since the technology and advances will be used in some way. Could it be used by doctors to stay hands free? Could it be used on motorcycles, so you can see your speed or a rearview image in the corner of your eye? Does it work well just for around the house, so I can do housework, and get notifications? Or can I cook with dirty hands, and see my recipe, or cooking time remaining? I think there are uses for it, I think others will see what they've accomplished and apply it in some way. However, as a device that everyone will be wearing while walking down the street, I just don't see it happening.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hobs 13y ago

I agree with you on everything except the privacy part, as people grow older they guard their privacy much more than as a youth. I think it will be like everything with technology, we will be more the same, and more different. People might share some information freely as a bird that we would be horrified at, but I don't think the intrinsic need for privacy will leave society on some level (for a host of reasons). Maybe this will manifest into something like "For Us The Living" with a public sphere and a private sphere. Go outside and you are 100% monitored by thousands of sources, but in your home or private dwelling things turn off. Social mores evolve slower than technology, but they do evolve.

resu_nimda 13y ago
I agree, I probably should have qualified with "in public", there will be some areas of relative privacy. There will still be a security community; people who are skilled and need true privacy will be able to find it, bit I think they will be a small minority. Already many people are sharing from inside the sphere - data, media, text, etc.
stormbrew 13y ago
I think concepts of privacy are changing a lot and what's perceived as youth being cavalier about their privacy is just a reflection of a significantly different perspective. Mostly I think kids are much more aware (though maybe not in an entirely conscious way) of holding on to several identities of varying degrees of privacy. They're better at segregating their lives into several online identities in addition to the one they physically inhabit at school/work/in public. Not to say they are always successful at maintaining those boundaries. Really no one could be entirely. But they are much more active about it and it's a big part of their lives.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

Sure, put me in a time capsule. Personal video "always-on" cameras will NOT be pervasive in 10 years. Put me down for saying that where ever you wish.

maxerickson 13y ago

I think the taboo will fade. I just hope the tech fades with it. Not away, but into the background. I'd rather have a pen that can draw a diagram on my workpiece tucked in my pocket than I would some geegaw strapped to my head all the time.

aestra 13y ago
Remember how dumb people used to look walking around with bluetooth headsets? Especially weird when they were holding a conversations and looked like they were talking to themselves? Has the taboo really faded with that?
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Well, for the sake of arguing about it I would say that the earpiece taboo has become equal to the talking in public taboo.

gone35 13y ago

You might well be right in extrapolating future trends from past ones. Don't be too confident though: predictions in general are very hard, especially about the future [1]. [1] http://andrewgelman.com/2014/01/21/commissar-traffic-presents-latest-five-year-plan/ http://andrewgelman.com/2014/01/21/commissar-traffic-present...

lotso 13y ago

>privacy is going away, and future generations won't care. I think the explosion of Snapchat shows that isn't necessarily true.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

AngrySkillzz 13y ago
You misread.

wpietri 13y ago

Might I suggest putting money down? http://longbets.org/ http://longbets.org/ I built the site ten years ago, and the Long Now Foundation has plenty of other things going on, so I'm pretty confident that this will do for your 10-year bet. If you find a challenger, I'm glad to help you two negotiate a testable prediction and get the bet up on the site.

resu_nimda 13y ago
I actually thought of that site after I posted. In hindsight I was unnecessarily...cavalier...but I would be willing to work something out.
- jrockway 13y ago
  My long bet is that longbets will be gone in 10 years.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I will take that bet. Name your stakes and we will put it up on the site pronto.
    - jrockway 13y ago
      What could go wrong? Done!
      - wpietri 13y ago
        Ok! Email me with your proposed prediction text (e.g., "LongBets will be gone in 10 years"), the wager you'd like, and the charity you'd like the winnings to go to if you win. (To stay legal under US law, bet winnings must go to US-registered charities.) My email: domain is williampietri.com; account is my first name. We'll sort it out from there.
eevilspock 13y ago
Wow. I've had for many years an idea I've called GoodBets to get people who argue on the web to put their money where their mouth is, with the money going to the winner's choice of charity, just as you have with Long Bets. GoodBets would integrate with comment systems, such as this one on HN, so if someone makes some unequivocal statement you think is baloney, you can challenge them with a GoodBet in your reply. They can accept or back down. The benefits are two-fold: discourse would improve[1] and charities would benefit. The GoodBet website would have two leaderboards: users with most winning bets by dollar and users who donated the most by dollar. That way even the losers win, encouraging participation. Any chance you could adopt my ideas, either into Long Bets or a fork of it? [1] Partisan Bias Diminishes When Partisans Pay. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/55494.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/554...

d23 13y ago

I remember thinking how stupid the iPad was when it came out. It's just an iPhone with a magnifying glass attached, after all. Then I got one as a gift, and the appeal became immediate. There's something about the need to criticize that seems inherent to humanity -- or at least the HN comments section.

coldtea 13y ago
>I remember thinking how stupid the iPad was when it came out. It's just an iPhone with a magnifying glass attached, after all. No, it's an iPhone with a much bigger screen real estate. Which changes all kinds of things, user experience and UI design wise. Things that are awkward on small screen are easily done on a larger screen. If it was just a magnified iPhone it would be stupid. Now, what's really bad is how many tech pundits though of it exactly like that...
- gcb0 13y ago
  nah. the phone is actually easier to hold/use. the ONLY reason i use the tablets more is battery life. Given equivalent processing power/battery life, nobody would choose a tablet. the screen real state simply does not compensate for the lack of public use, uncomfortable long session use, etc. give me a phone with decent battery life, and i won't even mind the occasional magnifying glass attached to it.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >nah. the phone is actually easier to hold/use. That's just like, err, your outlier opinion man. Now, the phone might be easier to hold with one hand, but the iPad is easier/better for lots of tasks. From reading books and comics or watching videos to using music creation apps, drawing apps etc. Anything where screen real estate matters. >the ONLY reason i use the tablets more is battery life. Given equivalent processing power/battery life, nobody would choose a tablet. Wrong again. Not to mention that millions of people by Wi-Fi only iPads, and when using an iPhone in that way (with the 3G/4G turned off), you get pretty much the same battery life. Or you know, those people could get an extra battery juice pack for their iPhone, but they don't.

gfodor 13y ago

A lot of people who knew the iPhone and iPad were going to be huge also think Glass is doomed for the consumer market. Sometimes the way you look matters. See: the Segway. It's a threshold. Did headphones really make you look as dorky as the Segway does to your contemporaries? Doubtful. Does Glass? I think it comes close.

stormbrew 13y ago
And I'm sure a lot of people who thought the iphone and the ipad were incredibly stupid also think glass is incredibly stupid. And of course there are people who thought the iphone and ipad would be massive successes who think the same of glass. Your ability to predict what amount to fashion trends in the future is not particularly related to your ability to do so in the past.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Your ability to predict what amount to fashion trends in the future is not particularly related to your ability to do so in the past. I don't know, your ability to predict trends in the past sounds like the best predictor of your future ability. Except if you think that there's no such an abilily, and it's all random guesses and luck.
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    It is the best predictor, obviously, but I'm saying that doesn't really mean much. Fashion is fickle. And the thing is, above and beyond that, 10 years from now the tech that's evolved from Glass will look about as much like Glass as the iphone looks like my first touchscreen phone (behold: http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000053553.JPG?0.005674472240123407 http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000053553.JPG?0...)
    - Raphael 13y ago
      Bingo. The first consumer computer glasses may not be a mass hit. But persistence, innovation, tweaking, and competition will sooner or later hit on a design that sells.

TacticalCoder 13y ago

I don't disagree with what you say but you wrote: "Similarly, privacy is going away,..." Privacy is definitely going away in the public space. But I'm not so sure privacy in, well, the private space is going away. We may even see a movement --heck, it may even get a name one of these days-- for apartments and houses built in a way that some rooms get a "100% no intrusive technology inside" treatment. For example you may have an intelligent fridge (so that it can send spam as already happened and why not be part of a botnet mining bitcoins), intelligent TV which can report your mood to advertizers, etc. but have, say, a bathroom with no intelligent lightswitches (because even lightswitches will surely have NSA-friendly webcams and microphones), with no WiFi and just a "detector" at the door ringing a bell in case you try to enter with a smartphone / smartglasses / whatever. Same for the bathroom and the toilets. I don't know about you, but as long as the state isn't forcing me to have a webcam and a microphone in my bedroom and in my bathroom, I'll still have privacy there. I see more and more people now putting a little piece of post-it on the webcam of their laptop (e.g. MacBook, on which there's no physical slider to obscure the cam). In other words: as long as I'm still a free man, I get to decide where, on my private property, I do still have privacy. And I invite you in ten years in my property and you'll tell me if the NSA can switch on a webcam and a microphone in my bedroom or not ; )

resu_nimda 13y ago
Haha, I have the post-it, colored with sharpie to blend in because people pointed it out and chuckled at it. I really don't see a smartphone detector in the bathroom, but maybe you just turn it off, I don't think the bathroom is an issue. The bedroom maybe, but I would assume most smartphone owners sleep with theirs in the room, among other devices. The overall connectivity of households and their data to "the grid" is increasing rapidly. There will be some privacy, it's not a 24/7 visual feed, but the government, Google, Facebook, hackers, et al. will be doing what they do, and people will be giving it to them.
- talmand 13y ago
  I use black electrical tape.

nitrogen 13y ago

Similarly, privacy is going away, and future generations won't care. You can already see it with the kids. This keeps being said, but it doesn't have to be that way and may not stay that way for long. For one thing, if kids were so careless about privacy, they wouldn't be using Snapchat.

snowwrestler 13y ago
Privacy is a major driver behind the slowing teen use of Facebook. All these kids friended anyone and everyone, and now Facebook feels more public than private to them--so they use it less. My younger siblings and their friends each have around 1500 to 2000 friends on Facebook. They hardly use their accounts anymore for that reason.
rprospero 13y ago
It comes down to a question of whether kids are careless about privacy or whether they don't care about privacy. We'll take my great-grandfather for an example. He'd be horrified about how careless I've been about protecting our racial purity. How could I be so careless as to marry a women without realizing that she's not only a dirty papist, but also one of those swarthy French‽ However, the truth was not that I was careless, but that I didn't care. I know all of these things, but they didn't matter to me. Similarly, I know someone who broke federal privacy laws with respect to my personal information. I could report this individual, but the simple fact is that I don't care. If he'd posted the entire data set to wikileaks, I still wouldn't care. It's not that I have nothing to hide - there's some pretty embarrassing stuff in that data set. However, everything in that data set, good or bad, is true.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  The only way I could see privacy not mattering in the future is if knowledge stops being equivalent to power. Even if everyone knows everything about everyone, I don't see that knowledge ceasing to be useful for manipulation. The important question to me, then, isn't whether the embarrassing (or mundane) secrets are true, but whether they would give someone the power to manipulate the subject of those secrets, or to manipulate others with respect to the subject of the secrets.

coldtea 13y ago

>I am actually pretty shocked at the responses here on HN, of all places. Not because, as technologists we should all automatically love any new technology, but because, as technologists we should have perspective on its inexorable march. Perspective also means opinion. Not just accepting the "inexorable march" as fate.

wisty 13y ago

> Whether it's Google Glass or something else, "invasive" wearable tech will be utterly pedestrian in a decade or two. You can wear an iPhone. When's the last time you saw someone photographing their food in a restaurant, then tweeting while their friends checked their email?

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

> privacy is going away The argument that fundamental civil rights will simply disappear in the face of "technological progress" seems utterly vapid to me. In fact, it sounds like a fundamentalist ideology. This argument is a thin is "we have nukes, so let's blow up stuff". This is not technology that will make certain jobs or products obsolete. This is not technology that will simply change the way we do things. This is not technology that merely affects our social interactions. This is technology that robs people of fundamental freedoms, freedoms that we've not only had since home sapiens first appeared, but freedoms which we have explicitly protected through laws and constitutions as technological progress has made it easier to take away that freedom. A society where everyone can be recorded on video 24/7 without restrictions is not a free society. If this is truly the "inexorable march of technology", I might consider becoming a Luddite after all. The technology of Google Glass is technological progress, just like printing a gun with a 3D printer is technological progress. I don't think that automatically means that in 10 years time we'll be walking around shooting at everything that moves with either.

7952 13y ago

I agree with the need for perspective. Sixty years ago people thought that kitchens would have a robot to do the cooking for you but instead we got microwave ovens and ready meals. You get the same effect (easy meals) just through a different mechanism. The important things is solving a particular problem or need; not the actual technology. In that sense Google Now is the pivotal technology for Google, not glass.

gaius 13y ago

You can already see it with the kids. We are into the realm of game theory here. You can say "I don't care if my embarrassing photos/controversial opinions/whatever are public" only if everyone agrees the same thing at the same time. Because otherwise, you will find yourself competing with someone whose aren't public, in front of someone who does care. That might be a manager, it might be the electorate.

bct 13y ago

> we should have perspective on its inexorable march. There is no such thing. There are only specific technologies. Some march inexorably, some are jokes (if they're remembered at all).