raydev

They've already forced Electron on us, I'm sure they'll make LLM-approach just good enough too.

Hard to compare since the screen is significantly better and touch-capable.

Anyone who cares about those things you listed is not the intended audience, and instead the intended audience will buy these.

Same story with Gmail here, and unfortunately over the years it has simply become my primary. I'm still undecided on how I want to handle my own domain+email.

Someone opened a Venmo account using my gmail and immediately started moving thousands of dollars in small transactions, and my only options were to a) take ownership of the thousands of dollars of small transactions that were now associated with my unverified email or b) get my email banned???? Eventually I got an email saying the Venmo was disabled due to suspicious activity, hope that doesn't bite me in the ass in the future.

What if I wanted to sign up for Venmo in the future? Why do I need to create another email address to use their product in the future when they didn't even verify it in the first place? How are they allowed to run their billon dollar business like this?

It could follow that we simply need fewer seniors. Hard to quantify now, though.

> the production issues with the Cybertruck mean you’d be a fool to reserve one of these

I'd argue it's not the Cybertruck that is evidence of lack of care, but the fact that this car was promised 10 years ago and Elon took people's money to fund it. And now it's going to "fly" somehow and it's still years away.

People have already put money down for this car 10 years ago, when will they get to fly it?

Not the one that was demonstrated yesterday.

Is Microsoft in particular a "foe" or have they done something particularly against the administration?

No, but like many people I've seen while travelleing and hitting a bunch of tourist spots this past summer, I do openly carry my phone in my hand, and I'm in a sea of people doing the same. And if I'm commuting to work, I'm reading on my phone, if I'm in the waiting room at the doctor, I'm reading on my phone. My phone is always out and so is everyone else's.

Anyone could be filming at any time with their phones and go unnoticed, so I'm not sure what glasses are actually enabling.

I am asking if Meta intends to do so. And to the new question you've added, I guess my question back is "why not just ban cameras from smartphones if they can be equally used for evil"?

It's already possible for people to surreptitiously record/snap on their phones in their hands today, because walking around with your phone in your hand is common. What additional evils are the glasses enabling, if your stance is that they are evil? Or why aren't phone cameras evil?

Just looking for a consistent principle here. First it was "Meta is evil" and then you switched to "the public is evil and Meta is enabling them with clear intention". If the second is true, then you must have clear stances on the current popular technology that everyone owns already.

Asking genuinely: what are you saying? Do they intend to use the cameras for evil, and the physical form enables them beyond how they are currently enabled by iPhones and non-iPhones now?

I first needed glasses in 4th grade. There hasn't been much time I can remember in my life where I haven't required them to function normally. Save for like, walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night.

I don't think making them glasses is "gross". It seems like a natural evolution of cameras to me. Even before Google Glass they were thrown around as an idea in scifi for decades. It's cool to me, but I understand public opinion isn't with me, and I'm fine with that.

Is it not currently always available on the phones we're carrying?

It's intentionally a camera that doesn't need to be held and it matches the the POV of the wearer. Where has Meta said it's intentionally designed to be hidden?