[vorpalhex]

I'm a parent of two, one of whom is a baby. I rock a Sony zv-e10ii.

Image quality is real. That glasses camera is teeny tiny. At the most basic layer, it's going to look like a bad camera from decades ago by the time your kids are old enough to want to see those photos.

Meta sells that device to generate data and profit from "services". Zuck said so directly in an earnings call: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zuckerberg-explained-ai-glass...

You are the frog being boiled. Your glasses are the pot.

[pj_mukh]

Fine in the crib, out in the open at a critical moment when your kid runs into your arms, screw image quality, you want that moment captured and with active kids there's about 2-3 of these moments every day. "the best camera is the one you have with you".

If I don't like something about my hot frog pot, I'll just switch to the Apple glasses when they come out [1] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Zuck doesn't have much room to maneuver without shooting himself in the foot.

My larger point stands, not all who wear cameras deserve to be maligned.

[1]: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/apple-glasses/

[thunderfork]

I feel like "the upside of the privacy invasion glasses is that parents can have induced videographer anxiety where they once would have had to suffice with memories, how horrible" is not compelling.

I wouldn't malign you, but if you were a close friend I'd probably approach it in the same way I approach friends who are getting a little too deep into gacha or gambling or funko pop "collecting".

[pj_mukh]

But they are not "privacy invasion glasses", data isn't uploaded unless I explicitly tell it to. "Oh But he's definitely lieing", yes yes, I know, and the moment there is evidence for that, I can switch to other glasses and the Meta glasses are dead, so I'd love for him to try (unlike FB or Insta, there is no network effect here to hold me).

Either way I'm not a glasshole, I'm just a dad.

There is no point arguing about the value of photographs.