this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026

230 points (96.7% liked)

Not The Onion

22298 readers

1729 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

230

DuckDuckGo Is Selling Anti Pervert Glasses That Contain Zero AI, Cameras, or Even Electronics Whatsoever (futurism.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 63 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Now, Google alternative DuckDuckGo, a company that has long attempted to actively distance itself from Big Tech, has come up with a genius new product that’s guaranteed not to spark controversy: a pair of plastic, non-pervert glasses that lack any electronics whatsoever.

The company partnered with sunglasses maker Knockaround to create the “world’s most innovative anti-surveillance sunglasses,” or “Normal F***ing Sunglasses.”

Would I call them non-pervert glasses? Maybe. Would I call them anti-pervert glasses? No, that is a word i'd use for glasses that work like the Freedom Shield: https://github.com/nickbild/freedom_shield

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Im very new to circuitry, only getting into it about a month ago as I stumble through rgh3 on a 360, but I'm learning it as quickly as I learn anything with physical and tactile properties.

Soft Circuits made from laminate on copper foil would be easy enough to make anchor points to solder the LED to that can be stitched to fabrics without damaging the circuitry. Using the smaller LEDs he mentioned, braided wires, and a jumper to connect a battery pack, you'd easily be able to wear this basically everywhere.

Get a denim jacket, run the wiring along or even inside of the fold over seam that's iconic in denim, I don't know what the coverage of the lights are, but that could be figured out easily, then you just space the lights along each seam. Same for jeans and a hat. Alternative, a mechanics jump suit with hood and go full head to toe. You could even use jumpers by the neck and waist to attach hat and pants to the jacket circuit so you only have to have one battery pack.

Using the DIY soft circuit, you could make every piece of this at home with a laminator, scissors, and sewing kit, but I'd hazard to say a cricket cutter would make it easier. Hit up your nearest craft fair and there's bound to be a goblin that can do this in a week with a cool jacket from a thrift store.

[–] nathan@piefed.alphapuggle.dev 45 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Thought these were funny and went to buy a pair only to be met with this

Checkout where $1.23 add-on is the default option. The company is free to take your $35 and run if you opt out of having your transaction information shared with advertisers

"Free" returns & package protection (the bare minimum for an online purchase) is behind a $1.23 paywall, to which you then have to agree to ANOTHER companies Privacy Policy & T&C, which state they'll sell your transaction info to advertisers. Kinda defeats the bit IMHO

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is because credit cards are extremely insecure (by design) and anyone with half a brain outsources that risk to another company

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

PCI compliance is a pain in the ass

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 7 points 2 weeks ago

And also doesn't even do much to fix the risk lol

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

How decidedly retro of them! Next they'll sell watches you actually have to wind up every day to keep time!

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Actually, there are completely mechanical self-winding watches. They'll never need a battery as long as you wear them occasionally.

[–] Uranium_Green@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This is one of those things that has no impact on my normal day to day, but is still absolutely mind blowing any time it comes up

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I just got one as a birthday gift. Works great!

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I went this route a year or so ago. Wait, that was three years ago now? I should have never checked.

I've owned a few smart watches over the years and got tired of things failing. Bands splitting (remember the Microsoft band?), batteries degrading, cases splitting due to swollen batteries, etc.

The only downside is that straight analog watches will drift some over long enough time periods, so you will occasionally need to adjust them by a minute or two.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would just get one of those cheap digital watches. They don't have any wireless capabilities and the battery lasts forever. (Mine has the original battery and it is around 15 years old)

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago

I was joking & playing up the retro aspect. Were I serious, that's what I'd do as well.

[–] Ariselas@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd settle for a phone that's just a phone

[–] abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Like this?

[–] comador@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Oh come on, at least post a picture of a good one. 1989 Swatch Phone:

[–] howler@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

Damn, I missed all the good things, huh?

[–] Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Had one like that, but I think it was solid blue

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 weeks ago

Those are expensive now.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was hoping they used an IR emitter to blow out any cameras pointed at you.

[–] RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That won't really work. Modern cameras all have IR filters with the exception of security and trail cameras.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I took this picture of my office's TV remote with my Samsung phone just now. You can see the IR just fine.

[–] RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your phone camera is seeing the overspill in other frequencies of light the LED is producing. Many remotes have an filter to hide those frequecies.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm not at the house right now, but my phone camera also sees the IR LEDs on my game camera, on my security cameras, and more.

I also have a filter that looks black to the naked eye that only lets IR through (it's used on my underwater camera strobes for my mirrorless cameras that do have minus-IR filters for triggering remote strobes), and my phone can see light coming through it that my eyes cannot.

What has changed on phone cameras is the crystal lenses let less of the IR that triggered the green sensors, so it tends to have more of a magenta hue these days where it used to look white on older cameras.

It's also why some outdoor RAW shots on modern phones have a purple-ish tint - especiallyif there'sa lens flare from the sun. They're picking up extra IR light on the red and blue sensors, but not the green.

[–] TrippinMallard@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

On the other hand, if you introduce a high power IR laser...

[–] OryxAndCake@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

At eye level in a crowded place....

[–] TrippinMallard@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Along with legal & safety disclaimers that the user is responsible for firing it responsibly & not at human targets.

[–] xx3rawr@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Technically not not The Onion?

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Technically the onion jumped on the bandwagen after the fact so it's more like not not not the onion.

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

Looks like an AD on the onion based on the #sponsored tag.

This reads more like just knowing your audience then an actual onion piece.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 13 points 2 weeks ago

DDG reinvented the sunglasses. Genius.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Are they too similar to the meta Ray-Pervs? IF so does that just normalize wearing the meta abominations?

I appreciate that this is a marketing effort for DDG, and the people wearing the meta Ray-Pervs deserve every bit of mockery they get.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Haven't sunglasses ALWAYS been used by pervs to obscure their eyeline?

[–] Batmancer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

I use them to hide how scared I am.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you install software updates?

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Over the air

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Meta's "Controversial" Smart Glasses...

What a euphemisim.