this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
370 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

87924 readers
3644 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
370
US police fear Meta smart glasses could be used to secretly record them (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) by savvie@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In January, the New York Police Department’s counterterrorism unit sent out a memo warning police officers about a new potential “security and counterintelligence” threat: Ray-Ban Meta glasses.

The memo directed officers to “conduct thorough inspections of all eyewear permitted within inmate cells” and cautioned that people who have been arrested could use these glasses, equipped with small cameras and microphones, to record inside police facilities. The memo cited two examples of such videos posted on social media.

“The ability to covertly record inside a law enforcement or detention facility, could result in a security risk if proprietary information about cell layouts, camera placements, or officer patrol/site protection routines are released,” the memo read.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Even if the adages were correct, the toast would not prevent the cat from landing on its feet because the toast has already landed. It's landed on the cat's back.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 4 hours ago

I was going to say: the Chi of the cat overpowers the Chi of the toast. While buttered toast may be strong enough to influence its own destiny during a fall (and I would suspect it's the butter on the toast doing that...), the cat is an altogether much stronger master of its destiny during the fall and whatever weak influence the butter on the toast has would be overpowered by the life-force of the cat.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You could make the same argument that it had landed on the plate therefore you're safe.

there's always another landing, or more concisely, another opportunity for the butter to hit the floor.

It's not about the landing; it's about the wet side hitting the ground, making a mess, and making it less appetizing.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

The joke is about tying the toast to the cat to make a flying machine. If the toast is on the cat it has already landed. If the toast falls off the cat then the cat can land on its feet and the toast can land butter side up, no paradox