But when I see a headline like "tacky men with ridiculous glasses" I get a sense that the intent is more to persuade via bullying than anything else, which...I dunno. Doesn't feel great!
In this situation most people don't buy smart glasses because they don't look good or have a killer use case. It's not the same thing.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/live/snap-specs-launch-live-l...
So yeah, it's a tiny bit different than bullying a classmate for having bad eyesight.
This shit ain't it.
Why are you trying so hard to shoehorn inappropriate criticism of people with disabilities... Into appropriate criticism of this technocrap?
I can criticize anyone's choices. Needing glasses is not a choice. Wearing Meta creep-shot raybans is a choice i will never stop criticizing
Problem with the Apple Watch is it does too much. They should have never enabled Apps on the Apple Watch. Kept it super simple. I hope they'll come up with a new version with an improved form factor and better battery life soon.
I have an Apple Watch SE that I got the battery refurbed after 5 years, 95% of my use is a quick check on my next calendar, setting timers, managing the morning alarm, and tracking medication and exercise. Oh, and constantly putting it into power save mode after I take it off the charger.
It's not a cellular model, so the other 5% is basically letting me know my phone has something to tell me. I have in the past tried to put games on it, but purely as a novelty.
no, they didn't; the people who buy Hermes bags still wear Rolex, Cartier, Patek Philippe, ...
It's the "cheaper" Swiss watches -- those in the same price range as the higher end Apple Watches (sub $1000) that have suffered.
But...nah, not really.
I will say though: The only time I know for sure I knew someone had a pair of Meta Ray-Bans was in my kid's youth baseball league; The coach would film the kids batting while he pitched and shared the videos with us. People loved it. There are definitely cases where hands-free video recording would come in handy.
Most advertising persuades you with less-than-rational means. It's just fighting fire with fire.
And it's quite justified, because in this case, it punches up against a technology with a net-negative social impact.
(This suspicion hasn't been lessened by some of the replies I've received.)
