No, you didn't. Here's why I don't believe you:

The eye it partially obstructs is the eye most people focus on when they are talking to you. So when you are wearing them people can't really even look you in the eye without constantly dodging the device in the way, and switching unnaturally to the left eye.

Yes, your attention to your phone makes it look like you aren't in the here and now. It's probably why people considered it rude even before phones were so multi-function.

But the glasses are even worse, because you *can't* indicate your complete attention without taking them off. You *can* look up from a smart phone, and people can see they have your attention. With the glasses, even if you intend to give your undivided attention, and even if the thing isn't displaying something at the moment, you still don't look like you're giving your complete attention. It's like holding your phone up in picture taking position. Even if you're not looking at it people will assume you're going to, or that you're taking pictures instead of paying attention to the conversation.

Try it. Hold your phone up at about cheek level, off to the side of your face, far enough in front of you that you could read it if you looked at it. I guarantee it will be extremely distracting to conversation and people will assume you are distracted and possibly recording them, even if you don't look at your phone. They will probably stop mid-sentence and ask you what you're doing.

With the glasses there's a constant reminder that there's a device between you and me, and I know it's capable of displaying stuff as I'm trying to talk to you, and I know there's a camera pointing at me. As if you were holding a cell phone up. Worse, the eye it partially obscures is the one most people focus on, so they can't even really look you in the eye.

Definitely. But even if they made it more fashionable I think it'd still be dorky.

That should have been even less likely, both times. Sigh.

In the future, software will be able to characterize what you've seen, recognize and label people, places and things you've seen, and organize your day's live recording into easily scan-able and searchable chapters.

*That* will enable true creepiness.

Right now it's unlikely you'll take the time to record your interaction with or your sight of me, and even less unlikely you'll edit it and post it somewhere as an interesting event, and even less unlikely someone else will find it interesting enough to view.

But make the recording, labeling, organizing and posting automatic, and the searching and scanning very easy, and I'm far more likely to be recorded and seen when I don't want to be.

When you hold your cell phone up, rather than looking down at it, I have a clue you may be taking photos or videos. I can turn away or walk away if I don't want to be on your facebook page. But most of the time you aren't doing that. Right?

If you have a camera always facing where you are looking, and everyone knows you have a camera facing where you are looking, then you are always potentially recording people, and you may find it common for people to look away or walk away from you.

Hardly a hipster. I'm pretty geeky myself, and even I think GG is dorky. And it's *your* shallowness that keeps you from seeing it.

GG is dorky because when you are wearing it you are willing to let a piece of non-critical technology come between you and your interaction with real-life people. It tells people that that gadget is more important to you than unobstructed vision and uninterrupted attention.

When you wear a bluetooth headset as you go about your day, you are telling people that your phone is more important than the use of that ear, or your uninterrupted attention.

That is, they tell people gadgets are more important to you than people.

That is dorky.

Someday there will be a less obstructive, less intrusive, less unfashionable way of doing the things those gadgets do, and there will be ways to discretely use them when needed and render them both inoperable and invisible when not needed. In the meantime it's probably useful that people who are more interested in gadgets than in people provide a market to develop these devices, but right now they are not invisible or nonintrusive enough for normal, social people to not be put off by their presence.

I've never seen that for sites that deal with sensitive information, like payment info. If someone manages to get one of my web forum passwords, what gain is there in exploiting it? It's an argument for not reusing passwords, but not a call for much alarm.

Dorky

It's more a problem in places where getting a gun is more difficult than it is in the USA.

Last I read the ratio of autistic males to females was 4:1, which is still far less than the ratio of male to female tech workers in some fields, like IT. Also, the autistic ratio is probably over-stated, because there are social pressures to (1) give girls non-institutional social coaching, more so than boys, since social awkwardness is better tolerated in boys, and this allows coached girls to get by without institutional help and they are therefore less often diagnosed autistic, and (2) give boys institutional help in life and coping skills, since lack of success is less tolerated in boys, so they are more likely to be diagnosed.

Autism certainly plays a role in who works in the tech industry, but even autistic women are under-represented.

Judging from the local "fandom" community, which of course is anecdotal, there are lots of geeky women. Most of them aren't in tech, either.

Go to the top of the thread.

Karma inferno. Burn, baby, burn!

That's a simplistic, cliche and tired explanation.

When I got into the field in the 80's there were more women and and there was less social dysfunction. A question more interesting that the cliche "women don't like tech", or the misogynist "women don't do difficult thinking", is "what happened in the 90's to make technical fields so hostile and so uniform?"

I'd suggest the internet happened, and gave a leaning toward social dysfunction a place to reinforce itself. Self-selection.