In a world where a random crackhead is all too happy to steal literally any box placed in your mail box or on by your door it can be quite useful to know exactly when the box shows up, or is at least expected to show up.
Most of us don't have to worry about random crackheads stealing packages from our mailboxes or doorsteps, so I think the parent's stipulation of a narrow segment of society holds.
> Most of us don't have to worry about random crackheads stealing packages from our mailboxes or doorsteps
Well of course, most of HN is extremely privileged and thus isolated from such problems. I wouldn't expect the average tech worker in a gated community or access controlled apartment complex to get it.
I live in a densely populated suburban apartment complex with absolutely no gating or restrictions on access. People much worse off than I am are close neighbors, and homeless people wander nearby. Yet I have never, ever had a package stolen.
It's not a problem for 99% of the country. No "crackhead" is going door to door between cornfields with a mile between houses, scoping out everyone's porches daily. I'm sorry you're having those problems, but the world is a big place, don't assume everyone lives the same life as you.
Even for the narrow segment of society in that situation, you're not required to give your money to Apple and then stay home 24/7 to immediately scoop up your packages. You could get a lockbox too, and guess what, they're cheaper than phones.
> Overall, total estimated annual losses range from a low of $5.2 billion in 2023
to $16 billion in 2024
> In 2024, the U.S. ecommerce market reached an estimated $1.22 trillion in revenue
So... between 0.4% and 1.3% of packages by value are affected, concentrated in specific geographic areas. A narrow segment of society highly affected, complaining often and making the issue seem wider than it is. The rest of us living our lives as normal.
This still feels like an American-biased problem though. Global News covered [0] a FedEx survey with one-in-four Canadians reporting parcel theft... without mentioning the time period. One in four over a lifetime isn't good, but it's not the one-in-three annually that you mentioned in the states.
CTV covered [1] how it was only roughly one-in-ten annually as well, which is again a far cry from the numbers in the states.
Does it happen? Yes. Is tracking a harder requirement for Americans due to a lower-trust society? I would say yes as well. Personally, I consider it nice to have, not required.
Well, no, I live in Romania and I get a SMS when the package enters the country (aprox. 2 days before) and the delivery guy calls me 10 min before he arrives. We're not priviledged here and I very rarely track a package.
I live in a small farm town, about the furthest you could get from a gated community or access controlled apartment complex, and have never had a package stolen either.
From a website like that where you expect them to go missing, maybe. But that's not the point, the point is that useful functionality is getting gated.
I think not wanting to pay some yearly tax on that $1.4 million because the government pretends that the same as having $1.4M cash in the bank, or making $1.4M in a year, is fine.
Not wanting to pay the property taxes associated with a $1.5M home is the problem.
Which is why we also have things like a deferred property tax program! The way to "solve" the problems Prop 13 addresses would be to expand programs like that, but homeowners—disproportionately active middle- and upper-middle-class voters—want to have their cake and eat it too.
And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.
"I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.
> And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law...
A wealth tax is not a retroactive law, nor something that targets an individual person. It's a "general law" in your parlance. Think about it.
> If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.
I don't think so. By what legal authority is that required?
> "I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.
No, it's not, and don't be ridiculous. When they passed laws against date-rape, would you have judged it "tyranny and despotism" unless the law was delayed to give the date-rapers time to finish up the date-rapes they'd planned?
There's no justice in giving the wealthy the maximum opportunity to pick and choose the laws that apply to them.
ah yes, all the tech billionaires of this era, had they been given the heads up that there success would have led to a level of concentration of wealth and power previously unknown to humanity, and that the populace would likely call for some changes to tax law to address the largely unforeseeable structural economic effects of this level of change they brought, would certainly have opted out, leaving the US, and moving to another less tyrannical part of the world, where, by the unique magnitude of their genius, they would have brought all their great works to the glory of other nations and not to America with its overly entitled peasants and social media sharecroppers; clearly the rule of law in Europe and China would have allowed them to fully manifest their unparalleled vision of technological greatness without any concern of a rug-pull by authorities challenging their well-deserved hegemony
What hyperbolic nonsense, just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it can't be bad policy. Wealth taxes are a fool's errand and serve only to damage and slow the economy.
It's kind of an interesting catch-22 if that's the right idiom. Places with these laws do generally have a higher rate of property crime when comparing like to like, e.g. urban areas of similar size, to those without it. However that higher crime rate often leads to installation of security cameras covering more private areas.
Others are making it wrong doesn't justify another wrong.
In any case: they are different because they are in the face all day long, they are not a device some needs to start using to record;
they are not operated by the user, in the sense that the user does not show any active indication of recording (e.g. they are not holding the camera);
they are similar to regular glasses, making it hard to distinguish;
and they do not clear indicate if they are recording (and don't tell me that the LED is enough)
It's intentionally a camera that doesn't need to be held and it matches the the POV of the wearer. Where has Meta said it's intentionally designed to be hidden?
People who don't know these "Meta glasses" exist (and they shouldn't need to), would have no idea that the thing is even capable of recording.
It's subterfuge and while you could argue that this subterfuge was "unintentional", but imho that's mincing words, and also given that it's Meta, not entirely in good faith.
Can I assume that you have good enough eye sight that you don't need to wear glasses if you choose to? Because as somebody who is absolutely dependent on glasses as a serious aid, it leaves a very bad taste they are literally hiding the recording device in a disability aid.
Does Meta have a reputation about being honest about what it's doing? This is the company that just lost a $17 billion lawsuit for endangering children.
Behavior like this will one day causing "no glasses beyond this point" rule, which will also hurts people that really need to use glasses.
All things you mentioned can be easily prohibited on photo-sensitive area. Perhaps phone is harder, but it's still easily get prohibited without hurting anything. Glasses so far is a requirement, not that easy to prohibit in an area.
The comment to which you're responding didn't claim the glasses enabled it more than some other device does. And these employees don't work for the companies that make those devices. You can see how your question is irrelevant whataboutism right?
Most people would recognize a gopro, or a security camera, or a phone held in a certain way as something that is recording or likely to be recording.
I don't think most people would recognize the meta glasses as something that could be recording. Especially if you cover or disable the recording LED light that is supposed to come on.
I don't know if I agree that man-on-the-street pseudo journalistic stuff is one of the "typical scenarios." Any time I see a product like this I think:
1) Can I use it to watch a more immersive movie without bothering people who may be in the next week?
2) Can I use it to make my games more enjoyable, either console or PC?
3) Can I use it to record IPSC/USPSA matches?
4) Can I use it for work?
I don't think these will make more people bother strangers on the street, it's just another way the same people can do that.
That's fine for you, but why on earth do you think every other person out there will only use these for innocuous nerdy reasons? Ask any adult woman you know and there's a good chance she will have at least one story of being stalked or getting really creeped out by someone. Consumer tech that enables creepy behavior will be used in that way by too many people.
Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
WhatsApp is definitely part of Meta's distribution and reach strategy. So it's very relevant.
I don't think OP is trying to punish investors. I think they are saying the overall damage of letting these companies continue the current trend will be worse than the cost of unwinding it now.
I'm an advocate of reformed legislation to enable this.
Why shouldn't we punish investors? This is the risk when you invest in these types of companies where regulation is nonexistent. It's not the job of the government to make sure rich shareholders stay green.
It’s absolutely insane to me how intro economics classes spout that capital takes on risks to implement new ideas while completely glossing over the political process of ensuring profit floors and guarantees under the “rent seeking” definition. Like, rent seeking seems to be the only goal of capital now.
Public prisons have all of the same incentives to reduce costs and anything you should do to ensure public prisons are following minimum standards (regular inspections and regulations) can just as easily be applied to private prisons.
The problem isn't the profit. The problem is the lack of accountability.
Politicians don't care about that either. They care about trying to balance the budget by cutting money from the places that people care about the least.
What a great way to flip a discussion on privacy. I'm so happy for your investments. I have investments, too. That didn't stop me from telling our financial advisor that I didn't want shares in specific evil companies, regardless of their profitability. Maybe that's because I have enough money to be selective about it, which apparently will earn your respect.
I know that shareholders just want monopolies and free money and don't want to compete for it, but we should make them. Like we did before Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork shot the kneecaps out of our antitrust law. It's not about punishing shareholders, it's about making them earn their keep. It's just good business.
Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
As much as you might like to defend the wealthy because the only thing you care about is money, regardless of the human cost, doesn't mean that we can't use the law and the government to limit the harm being done to humans.
I know what you are going to say. "Fuck people! I only worship money!" but I think you need to look beyond just the financial aspects of this situation.
The government can do whatever it wants. Laws are written by the government. We have a democracy. If enough votes exist to, say, pass a law banning drug dealing (like meta does), then the company will die.
I think the point is, it's been a good system, but it's out of control. It's not that people don't like people having money, it's people don't like the status quo of watching society and the world be destroyed by generating share holder value alone. We need a better system. Not saying that is communism or whatever, but the monopolies and corruption are off the charts.
I don't know the movie or show but there is a scene where someone asks a woman who quick smoking a long time ago (10 years maybe?) if she ever thinks about smoking and she says "every time someone lights up next to me at the bar I want to suck the smoke out of their lungs."
I smoked more than a pack a day for probably 7 or 8 years and quit a couple years after college, not quite cold turkey but basically just trying to wait a little longer between each cigarette. Eventually when the last half of the pack is stale and disgusting but you smoke them anyway because they're expensive, you just kind of stop one day. It was many, many years of no nicotine at all before I stopped thinking about it every day though.
> For a long time...a lot of online news stories would reference websites, papers, polls, etc. without linking to them.
The "$CITY_NAME Business Journal" websites are the absolute worst with this. They'll refer to something specific, for example "$BIGCO's 2025 10-K filing" and it will be a link. That link will go to the 10-K, right? Nope! It goes to another page at the same business journal. Maybe that page is a summary of the 10-K, but probably not. Maybe it's just the general index page for all the articles about $BIGCO at that journal. What it links to, it definitely won't be the specific thing described by the text of that link.
reply