> My employer provided medical coverage would lapse before my daughter’s birth. I was at risk of not have medical insurance for the birth of our daughter
> There are many old and very walkable cities in the Netherlands, any of the larger ones would probably be nice.
Any particular spots that you want to share?
I'm from the oldest city in The Netherlands myself, so I know Nijmegen. My tip for people visiting the Netherlands: both the older areas just outside the city centers of Nijmegen and (especially) Arnhem are very nice.
I felt a bit uneasy when the employees indicate they're uncomfortable with the filming and he asks them why, while continuing to film. Given how they're blurred out and that their discomfort is kind-of the point w.r.t. the issue he's trying to raise, I don't think this meets the bar that Meta usually adheres to when it comes to taking down videos, but describing it as "a bit" of harassment doesn't sound too wrong to me.
Others are making it wrong doesn't justify another wrong.
In any case: they are different because they are in the face all day long, they are not a device some needs to start using to record;
they are not operated by the user, in the sense that the user does not show any active indication of recording (e.g. they are not holding the camera);
they are similar to regular glasses, making it hard to distinguish;
and they do not clear indicate if they are recording (and don't tell me that the LED is enough)
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?
People who don't know these "Meta glasses" exist (and they shouldn't need to), would have no idea that the thing is even capable of recording.
It's subterfuge and while you could argue that this subterfuge was "unintentional", but imho that's mincing words, and also given that it's Meta, not entirely in good faith.
Can I assume that you have good enough eye sight that you don't need to wear glasses if you choose to? Because as somebody who is absolutely dependent on glasses as a serious aid, it leaves a very bad taste they are literally hiding the recording device in a disability aid.
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.
Does Meta have a reputation about being honest about what it's doing? This is the company that just lost a $17 billion lawsuit for endangering children.
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?
Behavior like this will one day causing "no glasses beyond this point" rule, which will also hurts people that really need to use glasses.
All things you mentioned can be easily prohibited on photo-sensitive area. Perhaps phone is harder, but it's still easily get prohibited without hurting anything. Glasses so far is a requirement, not that easy to prohibit in an area.
Most people would recognize a gopro, or a security camera, or a phone held in a certain way as something that is recording or likely to be recording.
I don't think most people would recognize the meta glasses as something that could be recording. Especially if you cover or disable the recording LED light that is supposed to come on.
The comment to which you're responding didn't claim the glasses enabled it more than some other device does. And these employees don't work for the companies that make those devices. You can see how your question is irrelevant whataboutism right?
5 minutes into this I realized that I would much rather just watch the original video.
While the text doesn't appear to be AI generated, it feels very similar to the meeting digest created by Microsoft Copilot. They are ok if I am in a hurry or just want to look something up, but I avoid them for high quality talk.
The article is talking about "social scurvy", which they use as a metaphor for people not realising they need to get out of the house and meet up with other people every now and then.
This is why the main train company in the Netherlands has dirt cheap bike rentals at most train stations. Saves a bunch of last-mile headaches, as a traveller.
I get the annoyance at "ask me again later", but "maybe later" or "not now" is helpful - there's no way to trigger dialogs by yourself, so this is a promise that even if you say "no" in the dialog, you can still go into settings to change your mind. Gives me less anxiety about the choice.
A much better way would be “Yes” and “No” with a small message of “you can change this later in the Settings”.
Or have three buttons: “Yes”, “No”, “Remind me Later”. Apple does stuff like that in other parts of the OS, like when asking for app permissions, so they clearly know how to do it.
"Remind me later" means "bug me again with a dialog in the future", which is not what I want. I don't need to be reminded, but if I change my mind in the future, I want to be able to proactively go and change it.
Yes, more text can be another way to provide the message, but if you've ever done any user testing, you'll know that people at best scan through your UI. I know I wouldn't read that, or at least would prefer not to have to read that.
I guess I don't see why "No" combined with "You can change this later in settings" is so much less offensive than "Not now".
> "Remind me later" means "bug me again with a dialog in the future", which is not what I want.
But it is what Apple and others do, and what the conversation is about. Sounds like you want what everyone else does (a “no”) but are just arguing over the specific wording of the message.
Yes! Somehow people seem to assume I'm arguing for different behaviour, which I'm explicitly not. I'm saying "Not now", and the ability to manually go into settings or wherever to change the setting later, is better than "No", while doing the same thing as "No".
And as I said in my first post, "Ask me again later" and the associated behaviour is annoying.
Have you ever seen an app where upon responding to a dialog, an option is irrevocably removed from settings? The conversation is about “no” meaning “don’t bother me again with this question unprompted” (which used to be the norm), not “rewrite your own binary to remove the choice”.
Of course not, that's why I was surprised with the suggestion - if that's not what it should do, then it's no different from what I was proposing.
I was agreeing with you that indeed, I don't want software to bother me again with the question unprompted. Additionally, I appreciate the reassurance that the dialog isn't my last opportunity to set the setting (because sometimes that is the case).
So tl;dr: label the button "Not now", and don't prompt me again.
“Maybe later” doesn’t explicitly say that you’ll never get the prompts again, so even if it did work that way, PMs would be able to weasel out and change it back to nagging you with the next update. (In reality, the wording like that is used precisely for this reason already, and that’s why we hate it.)
And it doesn’t really help the user. If I click “Not now” and later decide that I do want the feature, how do I find it? If you want to reassure the user, just say that:
Enable cool new feature X?
(You can always change this in System Settings → Y.)
[ Sure ] [ No, thanks ]
"No, thanks" is also insulting and unacceptable. I want "No, fuck off", so let's compromise on a plain "No" like we used to get in the era when computers were made for the users.
I agree that telling me exactly where I can change it can be helpful, although I'm also sure I won't remember that.
But we're comparing to the case where it just says "No", in which case "Not now" at least tells me I can look up how to change it later now - or more importantly, that I don't need to give this further thought now.
Yes, PMs (or anyone) making software doing dumb shit is dumb anyway, but that also holds true if it were labelled "No".
Where I live they've been actively removing traffic lights. One strategy is to turn multi-lane roads into single-lane ones with a lower speed limit, and crossing islands for cyclists and pedestrians. Cars move slower, but more consistently, traffic is better able to self-regulate, so while I haven't timed it, I'm fairly sure traffic is actually moving faster despite driving at lower speeds.
Of course, it helps that infrastructure adjustments over the decades ensures that many people that don't need to be in cars, aren't in cars.
Sounds like you're living in a country where local government actually cares to improve things rather than doing as little work as possible while also self-enriching themselves as much as possible.
There's plenty to criticise at all levels of government here, but overall I indeed am pretty satisfied with my local government. And on the infrastructure level especially - whenever there are roadworks, they're annoying, but I'm always looking forward to what it'll end up as.
...
reply