Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
Oh, I did win the argument. You’re objectively wrong. You hating smart glasses, or them being massive walking invasions of privacy, doesn’t make them “useless toys”. A thing can be bad without being useless. That’s a literally childish understanding of concepts.
That isn’t what it is! That’s like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people’s privacy.
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.
Where exactly do I claim it’s equally or that it’s equally vital/important ?
Was the initial claim
That someone else made, not me, and I did not address at all.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
You literally sound like a boomer complaining about Smart phones, describing them as “useless toys”
If it makes you happy you can think you won the argument
Oh, I did win the argument. You’re objectively wrong. You hating smart glasses, or them being massive walking invasions of privacy, doesn’t make them “useless toys”. A thing can be bad without being useless. That’s a literally childish understanding of concepts.
My eyes glazed over as soon as I read this much.
Nothing you say after this matters for a device purpose built for non consensual and inconspicuous invasion of privacy
So I’m guessing you missed this part, then
And this probably too…
Seems like you read two words and then just decided to guess what the rest of the comment is about.
That isn’t what it is! That’s like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people’s privacy.