Yeah man I don't know. I remember a similar thing when they integrated the camera into their macbooks, and all of a sudden macbooks were entirely banned from secure places (like government facilities)

and apple didn't really seem to give a shit. But I think the glasses ban would be way more widespread, since they're always on someone's face.

Maybe they'll market it as more specialty items, rather than always-on items? Like, "Put them on while driving for AR navigation enhancements!" or something

And I'm sure that's a major part of the museum, but the article sure makes it seem like the museum is taking the piss out of major, already-established companies. Coca-Cola, Google, Heinz, Bic... these are not companies displaying early failures that preceded their greatness.

iirc they were immediately met with tons of privacy concerns and were banned from a lot of places with the indication that if they actually became widespread, they'd be banned pretty much anywhere.

To my recollection, that's what actually killed it. I mean there were lots of factors, but that's the trajectory I remember, because I was really interested in them and thought they were cool, then I started seeing articles about all the different places you couldn't take them without massive privacy violations, which made them effectively useless.

Like, say someone bans them in bathrooms. Reasonable, but now imagine having to take off your glasses every time you go to the bathroom. The usefulness starts wearing down.

> “My research is focused on helping organizations to be more innovative. And one of the big obstacles to innovation is the fear of failure,” said West told CBS New York recently. “So I was playing with this idea: How can I communicate the research findings and the importance of accepting failure?”

Oh my god someone telling me that my failure might end up on display in a museum dedicated to failure for everyone to come and laugh at how bad it failed

is the exact opposite way to get me to accept failure.

I couldn't figure out what exactly was happening. They started arguing, then got divorced, then he was single? He lost his shirt, I'm guessing that was him like giving up on life/appearances?

> 1. calling it that is imprecise and only really works in Manhattan

Not really. I've been in Brooklyn before and been like "I know there's a yellow train around here somewhere, can you point me to it?" and that's been sufficient. I don't remember or care if it's the N/Q/R, I just want to be on it.

I quit NYSC years ago. I had a locked in lifetime price that they just ignored and charged me whatever they felt like. To cancel, I tried multiple times and they wouldn't agree until I recorded the call and told them I had it recorded that I had canceled. That was the only way to get it done.

NYSC is fucking awful.

I think the reaction is more about why a city police force, even the NYPD, has a $4m spy plane.

The article doesn't really answer that question besides an off-hand mention about counterterrorism

which leaves me with the same question as the other guy: Why the hell does the NYPD have a $4m spy plane? Why are they running counter terrorism operations that requires a $4m spy plane, and what exactly are these counter terrorism operations?

This seems like a job for the feds. (And the article does say the feds paid for it, so I'm trying to connect some dots here and guess that maybe the NYPD had better resources in place so it was easier for the feds to just supplement that and hand off the operations to NYPD, but again... why? Why is the NYPD already better equipped to handle counter-terrorism than any federal agency?)

Legislators: Well what do you expect, inflation is crazy!

Normal employees: My annual 2% COL raise was suspended this year.