Privacy

3295 readers

173 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

490

Woman Hailed as Hero for Smashing Man's Meta Smart Glasses on Subway (futurism.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/privacy@programming.dev

351 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You literally sound like a boomer complaining about Smart phones, describing them as "useless toys"

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it makes you happy you can think you won the argument

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

See my previous comment about strawmanning, mr. "I learned about logical fallacies 5 days ago"

EDIT: So mad you come and check the replies within 5 minutes just to downvote?

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I never claimed you strawmaned their argument, I stated you strawmaned the function of smart glasses by comparing to a "useless toy". Which you objectively did. That isn't up for debate. That's a fact.

Smart glasses are, objectively, not useless. Calling them that IS a strawman, and it does very much seem to be based on a childish belief that if the thing you're talking about is overall bad, then EVERYTHING about it must be bad.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Can you read? If yes, read my previous comment.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Ah yes. Marvelous argement. I'm right, because I say I'm right^1^

1: Source: Me.

Truly, a masterclass of debate, I am humbled.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Also, if you're gonna be a dick, I'm just gonna block you. Piss off, and I sincerely hope you have truly awful day.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Well, you never actually addressed the points. But if expecting that is "being a dick", well, whatever..

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

Reply point by point:

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.