Thread

ZuckOff is a free app that sees Meta glasses before they see you

400 points · 351 comments · choult

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

itqwertz · 1789988235 · focus · HN ↗
Great name
1. simonebrunozzi · 1789988492 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes, the name is absolutely a genius move.
  I would bet my money that there's a dozen lawyers at work, right now, in Meta's HQ, to get a sense of what options they have to harass, shut down, or do something else to the creator of this app. And I would also bet that Zuck is furious about it.
  1. etskinner · 1789989421 · focus · HN ↗
    At least one lawyer looking at it? Sure, maybe. But this is probably not even registering on Zuck's radar
    alex1138 · 1789989490 · focus · HN ↗
    You'd be surprised. They banned Christopher Wylie from Facebook. People routinely report their entire team (building some product for Facebook) getting their accounts banned
    Zuckerberg takes things personally. It's his entire history
    simonebrunozzi · 1789989762 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't claim to know more than you; but I think I know enough about corporate america and Meta and Zuck that the idea of multiple lawyers, instead of just one, is at least plausible.
    throwaway85825 · 1789989778 · focus · HN ↗
    He's extremely petty and fhin skinned. Remember the seat booster?
    orsorna · 1789999390 · focus · HN ↗
    Context <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-used-a-booster-seat-to-testify-to-congress-2018-4" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-used-a-boost...
  2. Bluestein · 1789989496 · focus · HN ↗
    Somewhere deep in the central European woods, a lonely dev fights for his life, against a dead man switch. Accidentally, a NATO drone flattened his house into glass a week ago. Now, he evades drones, rabid lawyers, train accidents, Starlink honey traps, sudden internet blackouts of unknown origin, regular honey traps, poisoned whiskey, social media bans and dowvotes ...
    ... if you can find him, you can hire him, and restore privacy and sanity to your apps. he is ... the ZuckOff dev.-
  3. pferde · 1789990312 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm guessing it's not even aware of it. The billionaires all live in their own reality.
pluc · 1789988672 · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785429">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785429
user_7832 · 1789989751 · focus · HN ↗
I... don't know how I feel about this. I mean, the concept, sure, good idea. Is it reliable? Perhaps. But... I get a "buy merch" popup the moment I open the page, and there seems to be a pro option for what seems to be a very much LLM-aided app? ...IDK, rubs off a bit wrong IMO. Just my personal opinion.
1. bwnkl · 1789989900 · focus · HN ↗
  I like the idea of this type of merch that normalizes anti big tech sentiment. But I personally would also opt for something more dramatic, possibly involving a guillotine...on the t shirt I mean
  1. vitorfblima · 1789991076 · focus · HN ↗
    Except any "solution" that involves AI is actually a win for big tech.
    UpsideDownRide · 1789992680 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that true if we move to local models?
    someonebaggy · 1789992830 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, big tech controls them. Chinese ones will be trained to say certain things about Uyghurs and Taiwan, American ones about communism and Palestine.
    bigyabai · 1790021374 · focus · HN ↗
    Unless you intend to run your inference on a potato battery, you're beholden to AMD/Apple/Nvidia/Intel.
    kdjdkcneixj · 1789994056 · focus · HN ↗
    Doesn’t even have to involve AI. Any tech solution is a win for big tech. Simple as that. We’re way past the point of no return now.
    rob74 · 1789997885 · focus · HN ↗
    ...except if it's certified organic open source?
    idjcjdjdjskdj · 1789998996 · focus · HN ↗
    Especially if it’s certified “organic” open source. To big tech open source is free labour.
    It’s their game at this point, unfortunately. We hold very little say in how things go.
    BubbleRings · 1790001229 · focus · HN ↗
    The following is 100% vibe coded by me, (except for the algorithm that actually makes the music recommendations, which is about 5 lines of code I wrote 30 years ago.)
    I created it in two months using Claude Code. It would have taken me three years without it. I would have never done it.
    What about this free service is a win for big tech?:
    <a href="https://SimilaritiesEngine.com" rel="nofollow">https://SimilaritiesEngine.com
  2. joenot443 · 1789991953 · focus · HN ↗
    I think that'd be a pretty weird thing to wear, personally.
    GaryBluto · 1789992878 · focus · HN ↗
    Social media has tuned people to be unable to think in non-hyperbolic ways. To these constantly wound-up people, every problem, no matter how big or small, can only be solved by brutal violence and savagery.
    ofjcihen · 1789993695 · focus · HN ↗
    Honestly it sounds like I’m not inviting either of you to a party.
    mschuster91 · 1789994931 · focus · HN ↗
    > To these constantly wound-up people, every problem, no matter how big or small, can only be solved by brutal violence and savagery.
    well, the idea of democracy was to offer a viable idea for people's discontent to be heard and remediated.
    Unfortunately in most Western countries, dysfunctionality and corporatism have taken it over, and that is why you're seeing authoritarians on the rise across the world. They paint democracy and "legacy" figures as the scapegoat and themselves (plus handing them allllllll the power) as the only solution - just look at Milei and the chainsaw.
    jawilson2 · 1789995253 · focus · HN ↗
    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    -Thomas Jefferson
    I personally think the tree of liberty is probably getting pretty thirsty.
    RobotToaster · 1789999521 · focus · HN ↗
    "god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion" Thomas Jefferson
    p_j_w · 1790001344 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s been over 150 years since we killed a bunch of tyrants here, and even then a lot of the tyrants got to live.
    cindyllm · 1789996216 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    stetrain · 1789999404 · focus · HN ↗
    The longer people see issues that are not being solved via peaceful means, the more accepting they become of non-peaceful means.
    I'm not advocating for those means, but I understand how people are feeling more helpless than ever to just "let the system work it out" when the system appears to be bought and paid for by a small concentration of corporations and people with an increasingly disproportionate share of wealth.
    bwnkl · 1790018961 · focus · HN ↗
    I wouldn't see myself as constantly wound up, but I get your angle. I also was at most half serious, alluding to a time not long ago in a country not far away, where this instrument had its moment.
    And in retrospect, the French revolution is not considered a dark episode of modern history, on the contrary.
  3. rob74 · 1789997823 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you alluding to this t-shirt: <a href="https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.WxWdam38N7Uxmwqa5dFTRQHaJt?r=0&rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain&o=7&rm=3" rel="nofollow">https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.WxWdam38N7Uxmwqa5dFTRQHaJ... ?
    ...which refers to the song <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Plans_for_Nigel" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Plans_for_Nigel; the most well-known person called Nigel in the UK currently being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage .
2. hallway_monitor · 1789992127 · focus · HN ↗
  The nearby glasses app linked in this thread seems to be a lovingly hand coded tool to detect Meta glasses.
3. brettgo1 · 1789993110 · focus · HN ↗
  Are you saying you don't want to show off a "Zuck Off" bucket cap?
4. aogaili · 1789995197 · focus · HN ↗
  so what if it is "very much LLM-aided app"?
  We are going to have the organic label soon on apps with this mindset..AI assisted development is evolving by the day and at the rate most apps will be built that way..
  1. n4r9 · 1789995997 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd love a label like that which tells me when an app has had thought put into it
    aogaili · 1789996095 · focus · HN ↗
    You can put a lot of thoughts while using LLMs.
    You are equating manual coding with more thinking, which has proven to be not the case given that it is mostly automated.
    n4r9 · 1789997106 · focus · HN ↗
    It's possible to code thoughtfully with LLMs, but the process strongly encourages superficial signing-off on its activities.
    aogaili · 1789997526 · focus · HN ↗
    It did make it easier to generate thoughtless apps, I agree.
    But this process is new, and not every AI assisted app is thoughtless. In fact, I'd argue that if a person put more thoughts and amplify their abilities with AI assisted coding, then the total sum of mental labour exceed that of any manually coded app by huge margins.
    I'm not sure about this particular app, haven't looked into it. But I was merely commenting about the mindset of the parent comment.
    justacrow · 1789997220 · focus · HN ↗
    If the developer can't be bothered to not make it look vibecoded I assume there's a minimal amount of thought and effort put into it. And in that case I'm not going to bother using it.
    aogaili · 1789997804 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe this developer didn't bother I didn't even look frankly.
    My point was that you can have very well designed and thoughted apps with LLMs. In fact, I'd argue you can go way further and deeper than any manual coded application paired with AI assistance.
    But maybe this instance is not the case. But even if it turns out to be not the case, if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it? People use many things in everyday life without thinking about what thought was put into it..in fact, most people don't think at all about what it took to build anything, and how it was built..
    Do you really know or care if the shoes you wearing was handmade or built by a factory in china using robots? you probably don't know and don't care.
    stetrain · 1789999217 · focus · HN ↗
    > My point was that you can have very well designed and thoughted apps with LLMs.
    If that were the case here, then a user of the app probably would not come away with the impression that it was a "very much LLM-aided app."
    You're talking about how LLMs can be used in such a way that they help production of an app but remain invisible to the end user. But the beginning of this thread was someone using the app and coming away with the impression that it was heavily LLM influenced, which suggests that it was not done thoughtfully and did not remain invisible to the user.
    aogaili · 1790000158 · focus · HN ↗
    I get it, and frankly I don't know about this app.
    But the parent comment positioned itself against all "LLM-aided apps", the author didn't say a slop or poorly coded. And even if it looks like LLM coded, we still can't tell about the level of thought that went into it. Developers had many poorly coded UIs and yet the apps functioned well and served it's purpose.
    So the entire chain of reasoning is a form stereotype forming. Looking at this specific app, I can see that the author thought about the marketing/business and functionality, more than other alternatives, maybe because they had more mental bandwdith to do so.
    n4r9 · 1790000474 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair, I personally only said that I'd like a label that indicates whether an app has "had thought put into it". That could involve e.g. another human reviewing the code and architecture and giving it a stamp.
    aogaili · 1790001415 · focus · HN ↗
    You are right - my apologies. It could be a good idea given that we will end up with so many doubts and comments like this.
    clear0250 · 1790014471 · focus · HN ↗
    This comment and some of your other ones are giving off AI smells...
    aogaili · 1790016316 · focus · HN ↗
    I hand written each one of them, I think they are full of types and grammatical errors as well since English is not my first language.
    I assume you are saying that because I apologized. I apologize for sounding like AI, I assure you it was hand written and I put thoughts into those comments.
    stetrain · 1790003783 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t see how this comment is “against all LLM-aided apps.”
    > But... I get a "buy merch" popup the moment I open the page, and there seems to be a pro option for what seems to be a very much LLM-aided app? ...IDK, rubs off a bit wrong IMO. Just my personal opinion.”
    Again, if the user of the app comes away with the impression that the app “seems to be a very much LLM-aided” then the LLM usage has affected the end product.
    aogaili · 1790016639 · focus · HN ↗
    I think people are judging mainly the UI of the app. This is closed code app so they don't know, but they are judging by patterns in the UI and/or wording of documentation. And I think it is mainly tech or artists or whoever else is impacted by the AI usage.
    That is not say there are really mindlessly produced apps out there. But the comment made it sound that anything LLM-aided is negative.
    ImPostingOnHN · 1790001260 · focus · HN ↗
    > if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it?
    Take a step back and think about your question in the context of software security.
    For a basic example, look at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)
    aogaili · 1790001817 · focus · HN ↗
    But what does this has to do with LLM-assistance coding? I wouldn't trust this app even it was manually coded.
    In fact, given the recent reports, in terms of security, one is better off consulting LLMs on the exposure surfaces. Something a solo developer can now do cheaply but in the past required a lot of specialized knowledge.
    Sorry I don't understand your argument.
    ImPostingOnHN · 1790002266 · focus · HN ↗
    > But what does this has to do with LLM-assisted coding?
    What does "LLM-assisted coding" have to do with the question I answered? Here's that question again:
    > if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it?
    Note that this question does not contain any reference to "LLMs". Indeed, an LLM-generated product can contain adware, spyware, or trojan horses just like a human-written one.
    For additional context, this app in question seems to actually contain adware and spyware, and has a closed source codebase, so might contain a trojan horse as well.
    Those seem like pretty good reasons to not run this totally-vibe-coded software, so I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument that LLMs make this okay or not okay or whatever.
    aogaili · 1790003437 · focus · HN ↗
    I get it - I think there mis-communication here.
    My comment was about not equating every LLM assisted app as poorly thought of. Your comment is about this specific app, and I personally would not install this app regardless of how it was coded.
    But again in terms of security since you brought it, I'd argue that having LLM assisted coded app might be secure than manually coded application given the recent advancements. Again, this is a generic statement, not specific to this app.
    ImPostingOnHN · 1790004125 · focus · HN ↗
    The original discussion was not about every LLM assisted app, it was specifically about vibe-coded apps, particularly ones with so little human input that experienced coders can tell.
    aogaili · 1790016211 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the original comment: " for what seems to be a very much LLM-aided app? "
    The author mentioned LLM-aided app, not even AI assisted; nor vibe coded hence my reaction. I don't have insecurity from using LLM nor from coding manually. But I noticed a trend in people thinking and biases and it threw me off hence the comment.
    My original comment was heavily downvoted and furthermore some of my comments were accused of being written by AI meanwhile I'm writing it by hand. Again, people are taking tribes/camps, if you speaking of insecurities, it actually the opposite clearly, many programmers are worried of being displaced and automated. And I do understand the concern, I'm just stating the fact that one can have very deeply thoughted LLM-aided app.
    alerighi · 1789999705 · focus · HN ↗
    If one person knows how to code, they don't need an LLM. I've tried using all of them on my job, and I will give them a second chance time by time (to see if the claims made by these big tech hold up) and ALL of the time I've didn't noticed any speedup compared to coding manually.
    If you are an experienced programmer (not someone that did an online course and calls like this) with YEARS of experience in coding in multiple languages really, the only real limitation is the speed at which you can type on the keyboard, that is usually way faster than what the even good LLM is able to emit tokens.
    This not considering token expense: if we see at the point of view of the company, it's way cheaper an experienced programmer, that in my country costs you 4000 a month tax included, than the tokens that an LLM would use to do the same job.
    On top of that there is the environmental impact of all of this, and why they are almost making me not use my car because it's euro 5 and now there is euro 6, these AI companies are emitting tons of CO2 to do stuff that human beings can do with 1/1000 the energy that these AI companies use.
    aogaili · 1790017744 · focus · HN ↗
    "if one person knows how to code, they don't need an LLM. I've tried using all of them on my job, and I will give them a second chance time by time (to see if the claims made by these big tech hold up) and ALL of the time I've didn't noticed any speedup compared to coding manually."
    I mean, have you truly tried? do others thing this is true? I'm truly astonished if that is majority experience, I think we need to get surveys on this.
    krapp · 1790018240 · focus · HN ↗
    The entire draw of coding with LLMs is that you can generate programs without knowing how to code. That's literally what "vibe coding" is. Why would it surprise you that people who do know how to code, and don't hate the process the way a lot of AI enthusiasts seem to, might not find them useful?
    You'll find plenty of people on HN who have this experience,but they just tend to be ridiculed or told they just haven't used AI correctly or enough. Admitting you don't use LLMs for everything, or god forbid at all, is like telling Christians you don't want to be saved.
    aogaili · 1790020750 · focus · HN ↗
    Because they can easily get outcompeted by those who care about software/output and use the latest tools? might as well code in assembly and brag about it.
    I'm not here condemning people who use or not use. We have a new tech, for anyone who have been in the field long enough, it is nothing short of magic was has been accomplished in the last few years.
    I could turn around 10K lines of code per day (I know it's not the best measurement but it does capture size to some extent) when I was not able to pull more than a 100 LOC. Let us say that most of it work, and there are few rough edges, a senior programmer can follow the shape of the code, and understand where to tweak and where the LLM get stuck. So this basically like having racing engine compared to running.
    krapp · 1790021891 · focus · HN ↗
    Companies get outcompeted, individual coders don't. And not everyone is primarily interested in getting a product to market as quickly as possible. Not everyone wants to be the Thomas Kinkade of coding, just cranking product out as fast as possible. And products that "use the latest tools" don't always "outcompete" those that don't. Most of what gets vibe coded - as demonstrated by what gets posted to Show HN - is qualitatively worse than the equivalent human-written software. It certainly isn't better, and there's no indication that velocity to market leads to market dominance.
    To metaquote a recent thread - where is the vibe-coded replacement for Photoshop that outcompetes it? or Word? Why aren't vibe-coded games dominating Steam?
    The speed alone doesn't translate to productivity and productivity alone doesn't translate to quality.
    aogaili · 1790030693 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry - I really don't think you know what you are taking about.
    krapp · 1790031234 · focus · HN ↗
    And I don't think you know what you're talking about. Good day.
    aogaili · 1790032654 · focus · HN ↗
    you too :)
    aogaili · 1790033179 · focus · HN ↗
    Let me leave with something we agree on at least:
    "The speed alone doesn't translate to productivity and productivity alone doesn't translate to quality."
    n4r9 · 1790018423 · focus · HN ↗
    Imo it depends on the type of change required. If it involves churning out 1000 line of new boilerplate, an LLM will win every time. If it means tracing a subtle edge-case bug and carefully planning a deep one-line change in a 100k codebase that leaves all other behaviour unaffected, I would still expect an experienced dev who's deeply familiar with the code to do it at least as fast and more correctly first time.
    ImPostingOnHN · 1790001160 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds more like you are equating a totally-vibe coded product with no verified code, with a product thoughtfully written by a human with LLM assistance.
    phoghed · 1789999095 · focus · HN ↗
    Bro wants the government to tell him when someone tried hard on an app, smdh
    aogaili · 1790017214 · focus · HN ↗
    People flag/downvote what they don't like without explaining much, and a lot of it are just feeling based/snap reactions.
    HN is not that rational of a discussion form but there are some good articles/comments so worth being around.
    joquarky · 1790023839 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd love for Nutrition Facts to include some kind of standardized glycemic index.
5. josh_carterPDX · 1790013834 · focus · HN ↗
  If it works the way it says it does, I'd be happy to buy merch as a way to support the team behind this!
cubefox · 1789989783 · focus · HN ↗
From <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2026/07/metas-ai-glasses-your-questions-answered/" rel="nofollow">https://about.fb.com/news/2026/07/metas-ai-glasses-your-ques...
> Can’t people just cover up or disable the LED?
> The camera is disabled when people try to do this. Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
> Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
1. blondie9x · 1789990841 · focus · HN ↗
  The problem is the LED isn’t enabled currently when live streaming. Most live streams can just be captured and recorded by someone else.
  1. cubefox · 1789991312 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a lie.
    > Does everyone know when you're live streaming? Yes. A white LED on the front of the glasses lights up while you're streaming to let people around you know the camera is active.
    <a href="https://actionstreamer.com/blog/how-to-live-stream-on-meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses" rel="nofollow">https://actionstreamer.com/blog/how-to-live-stream-on-meta-r...
    snvzz · 1789999031 · focus · HN ↗
    Basic modification: Some tape over the led.
    cubefox · 1790000499 · focus · HN ↗
    > Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
    snvzz · 1790005873 · focus · HN ↗
    Quite the arms race.
    Until it's hard enough people figure out how easy it is to fit a camera in a regular glass flame.
    bennyelv · 1790064879 · focus · HN ↗
    Also, you might as well hold up a sign that says “creep” with. Bit downward pointing arrow if you do something like that.
    Think through how realistic an attack this really is…
  2. chrisweekly · 1789994937 · focus · HN ↗
    cap -> gap
  3. solenoid0937 · 1789996508 · focus · HN ↗
    The LED is active when you are using the camera. It's hardwired.
2. ourmandave · 1789991843 · focus · HN ↗
  Or someone can just turn off updates and never download the patch.
  1. chmod775 · 1789992444 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a meta product. Safe to assume that sooner or later it will be unusable unless you install the latest update so it can continue phoning home.
    nyeah · 1789993447 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
3. nyeah · 1789992397 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
4. magicalist · 1789992975 · focus · HN ↗
  > Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
  Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
  1. solenoid0937 · 1789996469 · focus · HN ↗
    These reactionary takes on HN suck. No, it's not easy for the average person to disable the camera on these glasses. They do continuously make it harder to do so. At this point anyone interested in spy glasses is better off buying one of the many other glasses with cameras in it.
    knowaveragejoe · 1790001899 · focus · HN ↗
    People would generally oppose all such devices if they had a real picture of what's going on.
    bennyelv · 1790063936 · focus · HN ↗
    What is going on that I don’t know about?
    magicalist · 1790002626 · focus · HN ↗
    Alternatively, sounds like you're a user of the glasses and don't like what these comments might reflect on you if more people agree with them?
    Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
    solenoid0937 · 1790004528 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, your comment was incorrect.
    What exactly is your threat model? "It is possible to work around" every single security control that has ever existed.
    If the intent is to deter weirdos that would try to disable the blinking light, then yes, their mitigations have been extraordinarily effective and most of these weirdos buy other cheaper and more discreet camera glasses.
    cubefox · 1790010600 · focus · HN ↗
    > Alternatively, sounds like you're a user of the glasses and don't like what these comments might reflect on you if more people agree with them?
    No it doesn't sound like that!
    bennyelv · 1790063909 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes your comment is incorrect. It’s completely free of the nuance and real moral debate that needs to be had and adds nothing interesting to the discussion.
    How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?
    If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.
5. bko · 1789995060 · focus · HN ↗
  I think you're asking too much of a publication to do this kind of investigative reporting.
  Their job is to scan the app store for any app that is anti-tech and has at least 1k downloads and write an article about how there's huge backlash.
  1. bonsai_bar · 1789997610 · focus · HN ↗
    This is Wired, not some random substack. What a lazy, cynical comment.
flanked-evergl · 1789990739 · focus · HN ↗
You can only fight the future for so long.
1. knowaveragejoe · 1790002609 · focus · HN ↗
  When people really understand what Meta glasses etc are, they generally don't pick "this is the future I want".
  1. flanked-evergl · 1790028748 · focus · HN ↗
    The future comes at you fast and it generally does not ask if you want it.
tuzemec · 1789991123 · focus · HN ↗
Dunno why I remembered "The Quantum Thief" by Hannu Rajaniemi. Basically, you had fine-grained control over what others perceived of you. Your friends can see you completely, while strangers can only see a blur.
It was an amazing book.
1. jan_m_savage · 1789991897 · focus · HN ↗
  Thanks for the book recom.
  BTW, I will also recommend 'a hero of our time' by Lermontov. In it, you will get an updated view of what the meaning of 'friends' will be. :)
2. TeMPOraL · 1789991981 · focus · HN ↗
  Makes me think of a Black Mirror episode where similar technology ends up with unlucky/unwanted people becoming inaudible blurs in perception of everyone.
  1. treszkai · 1789993123 · focus · HN ↗
    uhm, spoiler alert?
    Permik · 1789993753 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't worry, doesn't actually spoil plot of the episode, it's all spelled out for you pretty clearly at the start.
    kdjdkcneixj · 1789994104 · focus · HN ↗
    And it’s not even a good episode so, you know… nothing lost here anyways.
    TeMPOraL · 1790004451 · focus · HN ↗
    Judging by how many people in this thread seem eager to reinvent the hellhole presented in that episode, it's good enough to recommend as required watching.
    silisili · 1790015653 · focus · HN ↗
    The episode is 12 years old. At some point it must be acceptable to stop coddling anyone who hasn't seen something yet to allow discussion, no?
    linkregister · 1790017211 · focus · HN ↗
    I think OP was doing a "hu-mor" there
3. cavoirom · 1789992132 · focus · HN ↗
  There was a Black Mirror episode called White Christmas with similar concept.
4. ColinWright · 1789993102 · focus · HN ↗
  I know Hannu, and he tells an interesting story about getting his first book published. I should write it up sometime ... in my Copious Free Time ...
  This comment box is too small to contain the story.
  * The Quantum Thief
  * The Fractal Prince
  * The Causal Angel
  Actually, most of the story is on his WikiPedia page:
  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannu_Rajaniemi" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannu_Rajaniemi
  1. shantnutiwari · 1789993979 · focus · HN ↗
    The 1st 2 were great but I didnt like the 3rd one. Its like the author was in a hurry to finish the book and just started killing characters to make his wordcount.
    The 1st 2 are independent, I recommened people stop after 2nd book
flexagoon · 1789991418 · focus · HN ↗
Not sure why you'd use this sketchy vibecoded proprietary app over the same thing that's open source and existed for a while
<a href="https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
1. colesantiago · 1789992258 · focus · HN ↗
  Unless you're selling to grandparents over 50-70, nobody says yj_nearbyclasses or "Nearby Glasses".
  "ZuckOff" is a better quality marketing name for an app like this, vibecoded or not.
  The media and already consumers have talked more about "ZuckOff" than "Nearby Glasses" so a winner has already been chosen.
  1. gelly321 · 1789993335 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not about a winner. This isn't CNN, there's no reason, (if you know better) to use the vibe coded sketchy software like he said. We're better than this. Do you really think popular = automatically better?
    colesantiago · 1789994805 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's not about a winner.
    And it is not about being first here. ZuckOff is just a better packaged app, that's why it took off.
    > Do you really think popular = automatically better?
    If it gets the point effectively across better than the original.
    Yes.
    It is more supported than something that is OSS that will die in under a year.
    There are features that ZuckOff has that are more useful than the suggested one IMO.
    For a vibecoded app, it is well packaged with a great name.
    That is how you get people to use your app.
    pentaphobe · 1789995343 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd rather use software which was made to solve a problem than software that exists to "get" people to use it.
    justacrow · 1789996984 · focus · HN ↗
    Nearby Glasses has 100k downloads, while ZuckOff is sitting at 1k.
    getpokedagain · 1790016434 · focus · HN ↗
    Why use logic when you can use ai pixie dust and marketing and of course our good friend. Bullshit.
    pocksuppet · 1789997548 · focus · HN ↗
    popular != better but better == popular
    If you see something that is popular but you think it is worse, then your better/worse axis is not aligned with the majority.
    orwin · 1790000198 · focus · HN ↗
    Untrue for sails, untrue for dinghys, untrue for foils, because price discrimination. I thought it might have been true for catamaran, but I looked it up and it seems that Hobie Cat 16 are still more popular than Nacras for some inimaginable reason, as for once it's not price related.
    If I go on another subject I invested time in, RPGs, D&D is the most popular system while inferior imho to a lot of others. Even if we have to keep the very flawed d20 system, the way forgotten chronicles handles everything is superior (and if in your bad opinion it's not the case because weirdly you like the class system, you probably would prefer pathfinder instead of dnd).
  2. dmantis · 1789993367 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a better marketing indeed, but that doesn't answers the op's question.
    Between something opensource and trusted, and a proprietary potential backdoor that can send the data back to the Zuck himself you'd probably want to choose the former (cause you never know with closed sources).
    I'm glad that he has shared the link as for me it's definitely useful. It's not a competition and I don't care what media talk, that's not about money.
    colesantiago · 1789994220 · focus · HN ↗
    There isn't any hope for something called "yj_nearbyglasses" if nobody outside of technical people know about it so OSS is kind of a moot point here.
    Outside of that, this project giving scary warnings is something I cannot recommend to others.
    > Between something opensource and trusted and proprietary backdoor that can send the data back to the Zuck himself you'd probably want to choose the former.
    Only HN veterans care about this, not people in the real world.
    dmantis · 1789994389 · focus · HN ↗
    You can expect exactly HN people to read a comment saying "why would you use smth instead of" on HN.
  3. XorNot · 1789993465 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean I'm going to install neither of these because going about my day obsessively focusing on something like this seems weird.
  4. nomilk · 1789993803 · focus · HN ↗
    ^^ this is actually a great lesson in the power of marketing. In this case, something as simple as a product name.
    pentaphobe · 1789995115 · focus · HN ↗
    Forgive me using your comment as a madlib, but one potential ending:
    (something as simple as a product name)... is enough to make someone ignore the actual point about software trust and instead argue that good marketing is what's important :)
    fc417fc802 · 1790003873 · focus · HN ↗
    Depends on the implied meaning. What technical reason? There isn't one, obviously. But what about the practical reason for the behavior we observe? That's explained by the name and marketing. And if your goal is to understand "why are people doing this" then indeed marketing is what's important and software trust only barely enters into it.
  5. BonerWiener · 1789995493 · focus · HN ↗
    > so a winner has already been chosen.
    Decided by whom?
    This feels like astroturfing. The amount of new users recommending and hyping this proprietary product seems odd.
  6. axus · 1789997460 · focus · HN ↗
    Your comment shouldn't be downvoted for misunderstanding the hypothetical; you give a correct answer why "people" would choose ZuckOff. The question was why "you" (an individual from the Hacker News audience) wouldn't use yj_nearbyglasses instead.
    fc417fc802 · 1790004609 · focus · HN ↗
    True, but as far as that goes the question was a pointless one. Whereas the one that was answered has the potential to lead to productive conversation.
2. 0dayman · 1789993598 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
3. olkalakam · 1789995238 · focus · HN ↗
  Because I read about it in a place I trust that isn't github, and only care about the perverts, not the code?
  1. phoghed · 1789995524 · focus · HN ↗
    Where?
  2. orwin · 1790000272 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean, one app collect your usage data, the second doesn't.
4. cute_boi · 1789995695 · focus · HN ↗
  Vibecoders don't even bother to use google. They don't have a clue that there might be already better solution.
  1. RoryH · 1789996382 · focus · HN ↗
    LOL, in another generation or less it couold be:
    ____coders don't even bother to vibe-code, they don't have a clue that there might be a better solution /s
    smugglerFlynn · 1789999821 · focus · HN ↗
    You get downvoted but I remember the times when Google was carrying exact same sentiment, people who used Google were labeled 'lazy' etc
5. mcdonje · 1789996482 · focus · HN ↗
  According to the android app store, Nearby Glasses doesn't collect any data, while ZuckOff collects app activity.
  Why would I want a bluetooth scanner to phone home? Seems untrustworthy. Nearby Glasses wins from a data safety perspective.
  1. tadfisher · 1790012225 · focus · HN ↗
    Huh, I don't see that in the permissions list. I do see:
    - run foreground service with the type "connectedDevice" - discover and pair nearby Bluetooth devices - run foreground service - control vibration - Google Play billing service - run at startup - Google Play license check - have full network access - view network connections - ask to ignore battery optimizations - prevent phone from sleeping - connect to paired Bluetooth devices - show notifications
    I also see "In-app purchases" for "$9.99 - $24.99 per item", which is more of a turnoff for me personally.
    flexagoon · 1790030386 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not in the permission list, it's in the "data safety" section on Google Play
6. Trasmatta · 1789996911 · focus · HN ↗
  I love how even all the copy on the site is clearly AI generated. We're starting to completely lose even our ability to write a single paragraph of descriptive text.
  1. pocksuppet · 1789997489 · focus · HN ↗
    Because it works. This is at the top of Hacker News, and Nearby Glasses isn't.
    rplnt · 1789997750 · focus · HN ↗
    > This is at the top of Hacker News
    Twice.
    burkaman · 1789998737 · focus · HN ↗
    It was equally popular here, it was just a while ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140042">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140042
    netdevphoenix · 1789999016 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, but part of the reason ZuckOff is trending now is because it is also popular outside tech circles.
    dylan604 · 1790000605 · focus · HN ↗
    The name is also much more engaging. As we all know, naming things is hard. While NearbyGlasses is simple and descriptive, it's not emotionally charged like ZuckOff.
    pixl97 · 1790001477 · focus · HN ↗
    The technical type tends to miss the power of the following algorithm.
    marketing > technical ability
    It's been this way ever since I've worked in the industry and will probably never change because of human behavior.
    rob · 1790004971 · focus · HN ↗
    No idea's original, there's nothing new under the sun It's never what you do, but how it's done
    - Nas
    wyclif · 1790002953 · focus · HN ↗
    But it's not at the top because of the AI ad copy.
7. CryptoBanker · 1789997013 · focus · HN ↗
  Nearby Glasses is also free on the iOS App Store while ZuckOff contains in-app purchases
8. grimgrin · 1789998020 · focus · HN ↗
  "even worse", I searched "nearby glasses" on app store, and it's 2nd, under the ad sponsored "ZuckOff"
  and so I leave this comment as off topic, but, is it pretty easy to get your new app to appear in that ad slot, above the main contender?
  1. lynndotpy · 1789998561 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. jacquesm · 1790001474 · focus · HN ↗
    Google has been doing this sleazy practice since forever, and yes, they even promote 'competitor campaign articles' through Google search, just google 'google competitor campaign' and you'll get articles like this:
    <a href="https://www.interteammarketing.com/blog/how-to-target-competitors-audience-on-google-ads" rel="nofollow">https://www.interteammarketing.com/blog/how-to-target-compet...
9. [deleted] · 1789998197 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
10. lynndotpy · 1789998451 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
11. zobzu · 1790002361 · focus · HN ↗
  but the ads are nicer!
  1. jdiff · 1790003203 · focus · HN ↗
    And they've got merch for sale!
shevy-java · 1789992643 · focus · HN ↗
The Spy Glasses need to be abolished everywhere.
I was, however had, quite surprised when I saw them used by "auditors" (here, I refer to e. g. "auditors" on youtube specifically). Now this brought a problem for me, because auditors on the one hand, bring interesting encounters, even if they (or some of them) meta-jabait and provoke (again, only some of them at best, in many cases they don't really). But when they use spy glasses to serve greedy mega-corporations, this totally shifts the whole "audit" instantly, because then they also support evil Facebook, Google or what not. And that kind of runs counter to the whole audit-idea. So far I only saw one use the facebook spy glasses, but I wonder whether he even gave any thought to this. I understand why he uses spy glasses, but I don't understand why he does it to benefit Facebook. That IMO puts the whole idea behind audits instantly in a wrong angle. I haven't seen others use it, so perhaps it just was one or few, but they don't seem to really think anymore. Some audit channels were also censored by Google in the last weeks, others were not, but this just amplifies the whole problem here. Imagine if the spy glasses were made by Google. And the auditors depend on Google money. It's really strange. The whole setup does not work well. I understand that they want to make money, but why would I want to support facebook-agents using spy glasses at all? That makes no sense, so I decided when an audit-channel uses facebook spy glasses or anyone else's corporations spy-glasses, I won't watch anything from there. Same with AI content - anyone using AI content I instantly add to a perma-ban list. I recently saw more and more people use AI slop images and AI filters. This is soooooo horrible. These people don't seem to understand that AI slop kills interest. Yet some swear by it - it is fascinating. Those who use AI slop, can not be convinced that using AI slop is detrimental. They have been converted into AI skynet servants.
Singletail · 1789993073 · focus · HN ↗
It only works while the glasses are in pairing mode. This is useless.
1. micromacrofoot · 1789994082 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm not sure why you think that, bluetooth devices often broadcast their presence even when not in pairing mode
  it's even on the site
  > Most pairs keep advertising while worn, so you can usually hear them, but a few standalone models stay silent.
  1. tonyhart7 · 1789995511 · focus · HN ↗
    isn't this security flaw ????
    Saris · 1789997157 · focus · HN ↗
    Probably, it's how bluetooth is used to track devices/people too.
    tylerchilds · 1789998513 · focus · HN ↗
    “Beacons” are a highly marketed socially acceptable thing in the advertising industry that has permeated the insides of most buildings.
    Standing too long in one aisle lets them know where you like to browse in the grocery store.
    When they first rolled these out in the US at least a decade ago I used to get notifications all the time.
    Stuff like “Near Well’s Fargo? Balance your checkbook.” As notifications.
    ChrisMarshallNY · 1790002486 · focus · HN ↗
    Nah. That's standard BLE protocol.
    BLE is actually pretty secure, but it does advertise, and some folks take advantage of that.
    micromacrofoot · 1790005966 · focus · HN ↗
    it's certainly a good reason to not carry a bluetooth device if you're trying to do something in secret
phyzome · 1789993810 · focus · HN ↗
Existing, probably less sketchy app: <a href="https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses (as linked in the other thread)
1. rootsudo · 1789998203 · focus · HN ↗
  This.
krautburglar · 1789994132 · focus · HN ↗
A better solution would be to beat up people who wear such things. Just an idea.
1. DaSHacka · 1789995657 · focus · HN ↗
  The difference is using an app to detect hidden camera glasses is legal while beating the shit out of random people on the street is not lol
2. redsocksfan45 · 1789997925 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
3. countsarabasa · 1789998022 · focus · HN ↗
  Turns out assault and/or battery are already very much illegal too and suspecting someone is a wanker isn’t on the list of things that get you out of a charge.
  Wouldn’t recommend unless you really, really like nutraloaf
lordnacho · 1789995775 · focus · HN ↗
Why do any of the device's network connections (WiFi/BT/etc) need to be on? What's to stop someone recording and uploading later?
1. metchio · 1790000375 · focus · HN ↗
  there's no button on the glasses to turn the Bluetooth on or off, so they're basically always connecting as long as they are powered.
rafram · 1789996190 · focus · HN ↗
> Shows the evidence behind every flag, so you can disagree with it
> Logs every Bluetooth device it hears, glasses or not
How much AGI is required before LLMs stop putting totally irrelevant technical details into marketing copy?
1. edot · 1789996336 · focus · HN ↗
  I feel as though it’s inherent in the models, as part of “alignment” or whatever. I’ve noticed whenever having an LLM help with data analysis, especially Claude, it just can’t help itself from putting caveats and guides and documentation inline or in footers.
  1. soco · 1789997344 · focus · HN ↗
    And if you correct it, it will mention "a previous version said..."
2. Trasmatta · 1789997577 · focus · HN ↗
  I also like:
  > Nothing leaves your phone and there is no account.
  This is good to know, but it's the exact type of thing Claude is obsessed with putting everywhere once you tell it NOT to do something. For example, if I tell it to commit but never push changes to GitHub, it can't help but leave "Changes committed; nothing was pushed." to EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE. The model just can't help but report back about everything it's NOT doing, and it drives me crazy.
  1. phoghed · 1789999306 · focus · HN ↗
    I like those kinds of updates (as long as they are accurate of course)
    What’s annoying is the stuff it decides to put into user facing copy, details that they’d never give a shit about, calling everything real, etc
3. cristoperb · 1790001286 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't mind if models do that but I don't understand why a human doesn't take 2 minutes to proof and re-word/delete them
world2vec · 1789997101 · focus · HN ↗
In the novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (great read, very pertinent as well for the discussion of AGI and what is consciousness), an "abglanz" is like a digital identity shield that hides a person's face behind a shifting weird pattern of colours. I wonder how far off we are from everyone just retreating into higher privacy settings and opt out.
drbojingle · 1789997850 · focus · HN ↗
Zucker no zucking, Zucker no zucking, Zucker no zucking! We did it, we stopped Zucker!
1. [deleted] · 1789998208 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
solenoid0937 · 1789997941 · focus · HN ↗
These glasses are amazing for capturing memories on vacations, way nicer than using my phone camera.
1. gspr · 1789998039 · focus · HN ↗
  How convenient, so to hell with the privacy of everyone around you then.
  1. solenoid0937 · 1789998117 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a bright blinking light on my face telling them they're being recorded - and they have their phones out and are recording anyways! There are a lot of assumptions baked into your comment.
    What's with HN becoming so saturated with snarky cynical one line quips? I don't think I've ever seen a worse comment section.
    Urahandystar · 1790000016 · focus · HN ↗
    Its not a battle you are going to win, This is pretty much the state of things but everyone old enough remembers when the same was said about camera phones, Drones and Uber being unsafe. Eventually usage means these comments will fall and then everyone will forget as it becomes normal.
  2. Ylpertnodi · 1790001203 · focus · HN ↗
    You expect privacy in public?
    RiverCrochet · 1790003612 · focus · HN ↗
    Why not? Something that can do facial recognition + location tracking + keep and instantly transmit related digital records to a third party should be considered an invasion of privacy even if in public.
    solenoid0937 · 1790004741 · focus · HN ↗
    Every phone on the planet does this by default today. I don't see the delta between these glasses and someone taking a picture with their Pixel.
    gspr · 1790010027 · focus · HN ↗
    Someone capturing a single frame with a phone is smaller in volume, and more easily spotted and socially punished than someone recording video with glasses.
    bennyelv · 1790063304 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is it smaller in volume? Sure that’s the decision of the person and has nothing to do with the device?
    When phones first had cameras, and people were not aware, it would have been easier to secretly film. But news flash, where I’m sitting right now in a cafe full of tech workers, nobody would notice if I started secretly filming on my phone.
    If I wanted to secretly film, I’d be more confident of getting away with it using my phone than with a set of glasses which have a flashing light on them.
    JsonDemWitOster · 1790010822 · focus · HN ↗
    So why not just take a picture with your Pixel, Mr. Bond?
    solenoid0937 · 1790076553 · focus · HN ↗
    Why not use an abacus to browse the web?
    RiverCrochet · 1790030239 · focus · HN ↗
    Both items in scope as far as I'm concerned. I'm fine with glasses and uncovered phone cameras in picture-taking position being treated the same way from a privacy violation standpoint. Maybe we can also do something about phone speakers at max volume in inappropriate places as well.
    bennyelv · 1790063152 · focus · HN ↗
    You’ll need to ban all cameras then. None of that is strictly related to glasses with a camera in themZ
    RiverCrochet · 1790275155 · focus · HN ↗
    Let's do it.
    gspr · 1790009957 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. To an extent.
  3. partiallypro · 1790001837 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the panic around smart glasses cameras is so strange, it's SO much easier to be a creep with a phone recording. You'll see it all the time if you're paying attention. Everyone is already on their phones anyhow, and especially with creep shots your head is a massive giveaway; with a smart phones, not so much. What practically could someone record without their knowledge that isn't already widely and more easily available through a smartphone? I just don't get it. I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone.
  4. bennyelv · 1790063086 · focus · HN ↗
    You’ll have to explain how it’s different to recording something on any other phone or camera system…
partiallypro · 1790001950 · focus · HN ↗
I think the panic around smart glasses cameras is so strange, it's SO much easier to be a creep with a phone recording. You'll see it all the time if you're paying attention. Everyone is already on their phones anyhow, and especially with creep shots your head is a massive giveaway; with a smart phones, not so much. What practically could someone record without their knowledge that isn't already widely and more easily available through a smartphone? I just don't get it. I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone.
1. mattnewton · 1790002796 · focus · HN ↗
  Your phone has to be out of your pocket and raised up to record me, which I can notice.
  1. solenoid0937 · 1790004817 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't notice a bright blinking light on someone's face?
    mattnewton · 1790006314 · focus · HN ↗
    It is less noticeable in person than a phone out and pointed at you yes. And I would react similarly.
    bennyelv · 1790063565 · focus · HN ↗
    Disagree. It’s very context dependent which would be more noticeable.
    Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.
    mattnewton · 1790103327 · focus · HN ↗
    It has happened to me actually with the snap spectacle things.
    Idk why we’re acting like people are hysterical the dangers of always on displays and cameras versus phones that go in pockets have been debated for over a decade now with Google glass. People do not like it for legitimate reasons.
  2. partiallypro · 1790180998 · focus · HN ↗
    You think the phone has to be raised to be recording? How do you think perverts do upskirts, etc?
2. pbasista · 1790003314 · focus · HN ↗
  There is no "panic". It is more a realization that it is becoming difficult to notice recording devices.
  I assume the most problematic scenarios are private. Private meetings. Private conversations. Private encounters of every kind in general. Environment in which ordinary people used to have good enough confidence that, unless they see a phone or a camera, they are not being recorded. It no longer is that simple.
  Confirming, at least to some extent, that there is no recording going on may now require confronting the other person. And asking them to remove their glasses or hand them over for inspection might be considered rude.
  As a result, I think that it might make people more suspicious and less trusting, especially when meeting new people for the first time.
  1. partiallypro · 1790181251 · focus · HN ↗
    But during private meetings, private conversations, etc people are already 99.99% of the time on their phones. Smart glasses have way less battery life and recording time (I think Meta's is 30 seconds now?) Wouldn't it be easier to just record a conversation on your phone without knowledge? You can even have the app running in the background. I haven't seen a complaint yet about them that isn't already worse, more discrete, or already available on a phone.
knowaveragejoe · 1790002067 · focus · HN ↗
A non-slop and non-freemium variant:
<a href="https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
swrrt · 1790003011 · focus · HN ↗
Does someone want to make this into a product and selling to people?
seany · 1790014080 · focus · HN ↗
Are there any decent glasses have similar features but aren't meta?
QGQBGdeZREunxLe · 1790027779 · focus · HN ↗
Is this for a specific model or is this a General Zuckoff?
mandeepj · 1790053300 · focus · HN ↗
Imagine wearing Zuckoff merchandise to a Meta onsite interview or at their Connect conf :-)
whydoineedthis · 1790089886 · focus · HN ↗
I downloaded and tried it. It’s a nice app. I was surprised to see 400+ other Bluetooth devices in range. I think it’s neet to explore the invisible digital world we have all been made subject to.
kittikitti · 1790094656 · focus · HN ↗
Thank you for sharing this. If I get a notification about one near me, I will make sure to very aggressively search for it. If I find that whoever wore it has no practical purpose for it, I will likely humiliate them on the spot.
1. cindyllm · 1790100349 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.