Yeah, what got me to post was because I never knew how the left felt about smart glasses until I read the comment section of the gizmodo article.
Apparently it's creepy if you have a camera on your face. Sure, that's like a 2/10 take, but coming from a liberal I automatically suspect they really dislike individuals having the ability to record on command for a different reason lol.
I can't wait for the lawsuit where someone is recording a chimpout and gets attacked because the led light gave him away.
Yea I was wondering if it can detect black paint? A little spot of vantablack and, unless it's got some external sensor that captures the light from the LED (it doesn't), then problem solved. If the LED detects that it's covered, that seems like any smudge would result in a malfunction. Also it wouldn't work in the dark. Idk, seems pretty easily defeated by simple physical means.
I forgot the details, but the sensor tries to match brightness when you use the camera if you obstruct the sensor it won't let you use the camera, the workaround is to block the camera and the sensor so they match in brightness (darkness), then you can record videos but not take photos because all you'll take is a photo of your palm.
What meta is doing now they're going to put in a mandatory update so if they detect you tampered with or disabled with led light, typically people drill them out, your camera function will no longer work.
How do they do it? I imagine all they gotta do is do a led test with the sensor without the camera being activated, if the sensor doesn't pick up intermittent burst of brightness, the led must not be functional, disable camera.
Right, but the sensor has to be in close proximity to the LED (maybe even a transparent sensor), not external. That is, the sensor isn't beyond the lens of the LED. So if you just blot the lens of the LED with black paint (or whatever color matches even, if the paint is thick enough), the sensor should still pick up the light, and the LED will return whatever pulsed signal or voltage drop from the resistance that the device is seeking for functional confirmation, but the LED will be unnoticeable unless maybe you're right up on the person and can see the paint blot.
But my understanding is also that the glasses look like basically normal thick-framed glasses, so unless you're looking for it, you won't notice. So here comes the world where you look askance at everyone with glasses I guess.
Yeah, what got me to post was because I never knew how the left felt about smart glasses until I read the comment section of the gizmodo article.
Apparently it's creepy if you have a camera on your face. Sure, that's like a 2/10 take, but coming from a liberal I automatically suspect they really dislike individuals having the ability to record on command for a different reason lol.
I can't wait for the lawsuit where someone is recording a chimpout and gets attacked because the led light gave him away.
There's already acrylic inserts to block the light. This "issue" was solved a long time ago.
Meta doesn't really care either, only to say they did "something" and "hear our customer's concerns."
Yea I was wondering if it can detect black paint? A little spot of vantablack and, unless it's got some external sensor that captures the light from the LED (it doesn't), then problem solved. If the LED detects that it's covered, that seems like any smudge would result in a malfunction. Also it wouldn't work in the dark. Idk, seems pretty easily defeated by simple physical means.
I forgot the details, but the sensor tries to match brightness when you use the camera if you obstruct the sensor it won't let you use the camera, the workaround is to block the camera and the sensor so they match in brightness (darkness), then you can record videos but not take photos because all you'll take is a photo of your palm.
What meta is doing now they're going to put in a mandatory update so if they detect you tampered with or disabled with led light, typically people drill them out, your camera function will no longer work.
How do they do it? I imagine all they gotta do is do a led test with the sensor without the camera being activated, if the sensor doesn't pick up intermittent burst of brightness, the led must not be functional, disable camera.
Right, but the sensor has to be in close proximity to the LED (maybe even a transparent sensor), not external. That is, the sensor isn't beyond the lens of the LED. So if you just blot the lens of the LED with black paint (or whatever color matches even, if the paint is thick enough), the sensor should still pick up the light, and the LED will return whatever pulsed signal or voltage drop from the resistance that the device is seeking for functional confirmation, but the LED will be unnoticeable unless maybe you're right up on the person and can see the paint blot.
But my understanding is also that the glasses look like basically normal thick-framed glasses, so unless you're looking for it, you won't notice. So here comes the world where you look askance at everyone with glasses I guess.
I think I'd install extra LEDs to ensure the chimps know they're being recorded in the first place.
Notice how ALL three articles have WHITE skin people. More antiwhite bigotry from the k1ke media.