PurelyApplied

Not trying to go to bat for Google here, but this smells to me like them trying to abide by Know Your Customer regulation.

I don't love it either, but "why doesn't Google just ignore that regulation?" doesn't seem viable. (Companies only ignore laws when it's profitable, of course.)

I do all* of that with my phone and a Bluetooth bone conduction headphones. It kinda seems like the glasses part only make sense if it's for loading it up with a camera. You know, for looking at things, with your glasses.

I agree it would be nice to have a non-skeezy offering, but I think that would be an entirely different product line.

[Edit: oh, well, I didn't realize some but not all of the meta glasses do actually have a tiny display built in. That would be the other use case, for the looking at things, through your glasses.]

* Okay, the sound quality is just alright, but if Meta wanted to pivot to headphones, I'm all ears, as it were.

Yeah. Like, you can do all this without LLMs. "Oh, I didn't copy this open source repo with a restrictive license, I just found an fork that was identical except for having removed the license. So we used that."

That's not how licenses work, and the license holder can absolutely tell you to get bent and/or pony up.

Oh hey, Photobucket! I wonder what I stashed in there...

Look through old email to figure out what email address they had.

Attempt to log in, no memory of password. Get reset link sent to my ancient Hotmail.

Hotmail doesn't recognize this device because I haven't logged in in a decade. Send an email to my [email protected] that I apparently set up at some point to confirm my identity. Have to enter multiple confirmation codes.

Log into Hotmail, click link to reset Photobucket password.

Create a new password, put it on my vault.

"Failed to reset password Firebase: Error (auth/the-service-is-currently-unavailable.)."

Perfect. No notes.

Certainly not fictional. You just haven't heard of the company that doubled every month for a year, which obviously they did because why wouldn't you?

If minor mistakes are corrected without the PR author's input, do they ever learn to stop making those mistakes themselves? It seems like a system where you just never bother to learn, e.g., style conventions, because reviewers just apply edits as needed.

I apprEciatE your dEdication to ExclusivEly using 'e' in quotEd rEfErEncE, but not in thE rEst of your clEarly human-authorEd tExt.

I rEgrEt that I havE not donE thE samE, but plEase accEpt bad formatting as a countErpoint.

The etymology of "manuscript" is from Latin "manu" by hand "script" (scriptus) written.

They made a drama comedy faux-documentary about it a few years ago titled _Pinball: The Man Who Saved The Game_. It's cute, regardless of your investment into pinball as a whole.

Oh, I fixed the link. It was easy enough to figure out. It never bodes well when an author fails to proof their summary line, though.

I feel like the header where you define key terms is a space where you really, really want to check for typos.

> A major reason they don't make the news is that many aren't that critical.

My favorite recall was the letter I got last year for 23V048000.

The instructions for how to engage the defroster in my car manual were suboptimal. You actually _don't_ want it to be on full-blast.

Please report to your nearest Nissan dealer to get a piece of paper to put in your car manual.

It was turned down three days ago.

> How did they got access to it? Concerning..

Someone bound system:anonymous to ClusterReader "just for now, for testing, I'll delete it right after".