Intel's "smart glasses" approach looks like the right one: no cameras, nonintrusive. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-smart-glasses-announced-ar-video
Can we get a libre version of this in the works plz
@drequivalent It says Windows, so it looks like it isn't open enough to trust. Maybe can be reinstalled but I doubt it.
Heck, I'd settle for a not particularly libre hardware design if it could run a libre OS, though I'd prefer a libre hardware design.
@drequivalent Also my suspicion is that we're going to *need* a libre hardware version of these in terms of "computing is becoming part of you more and more physically, and user freedom issues are no longer nerd rights but human rights"
@cwebber Of course, good augmentation should REQUIRE openness. Putting something you don't/can't trust in/on your body is generally a bad idea.
@cwebber May be (as much as I don't like the state and especially the state stepping on our, nerd territory) we'll need a new legislation for this. Because wearable technology is only a stepping stone before we start putting silicon into our bodies. And in this case the user's rights should be as important than ever, if not more. We need to start thinking about it now.
@drequivalent @cwebber This is why even black-hat hackers are serving a critical role in our society, by exposing these problems.
@drequivalent @cwebber People already have computers in their bodies: pace makers, defibrillators, insulin pumps, cochlear implants, and etc. Karen Sandler recently spoke again about the topic in relation to her defibrillator: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/feb/02/lca2018/
She and people like her are out on the forefront of this, but perhaps people interested in wearable and elective body modification tech could join them to help make progress on these issues? That would be cool.
@bob @drequivalent the fundamentals of needing software freedom haven't changed, but the consequences of having or not having it have become more general and severe.
@drequivalent @cwebber It's safe for the eye, and not for the brain, as every tool that create dissonance between multiple distance information.
But as some people live their entire life without stereomatching, I gess it can be a volontary choice.
The most interesting thing I think we can do with it is to put two camera on it, and make it project the real-world image to people with vision default that cannot be adjusted easely (like with progressive glasses).
@cwebber I really like the hardware design, and I'd like a HUD that is *just* a display like this. But it looks like with the contextual notifications (and possibly voice control) they are doubling down on surveillance capitalism.
@gcupc There's no stopping this direction of computing interfaces. The question is, is it in the user's control? If so, awesome. If not, we're in trouble.
@cwebber think we need a libre smartphone first
@cwebber
mm yes we need to tear this wide open
luckily the important part is still going to just be binary blobs :)
@cwebber Damn. Retinal projection sounds like how it was always meant to be. I wonder if it is safe for the eyesight though.
As for cameras, I'd like it more as an option. Like, you can if you want to, but you certainly don't have to.
Also, what OS will it run? Will it be open enough to trust?