My guess would be the restricted mode might be something the prepaid carriers wanted. It is a fairly common thing for people to get a Metro by T-Mobile or Total Wireless iPhone to give to their kid as an inexpensive substitute for Apple's now discontinued iPod Touch. This would certainly nip that in the bud.

That's the neat thing - they haven't stopped doing this! The subsidized phone price the carriers give you when signing up is priced into the service plan. If you don't upgrade again when you're eligible (perhaps because you're elderly and don't follow the promotions), that's now all gravy for the carrier.

But will the iPhone come disassembled in two cardboard boxes with a set of perplexing instructions?

The 3 minute clip limitation is right here on their site.

Okay, let's imagine your sci-fi realm glasses exist. They can record all day long due to some amazing advancements in battery chemistry and/or semiconductor efficiency. We're already pretty much there as far as flash memory goes, so there's at least that. The part you're failing to consider is the potential for self-incrimination, because the glasses are recording everything you do, too. Rolled through a stop sign? Hit the high seas for a TV show? Forgot to scan an item at self-checkout? Smoked a joint after work? And don't even think of turning them off, because if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Unlimited recording doesn't make the glasses more useful - it makes them more dystopian.

A pair of smart glasses is going to become "lost" in exactly the same manner if a LEO decides they want the footage gone.

As I already said, even if you solve the issues with the technology, recording every single interaction throughout your daily life creates the potential for a whole new set of potential self-incrimination problems. These problems are far more likely to occur than the off chance someone wants to fraudulently claim you've wronged them in some way. The famous quote "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." comes to mind.

My point is that in the extremely unlikely event you find yourself in a situation you can't just de-escalate and walk away from, a pair of glasses with a camera that records three minute clips isn't going to do much good.

LEOs intent on disregarding your rights aren't going to say "Aww, shucks, this guy's got a camera. Guess we'll just have to let him go!"

I'm also really not seeing how owning a pair of "pervert glasses" (yeah, I just had to say it again) is supposed to help the case of someone accused of sexual misconduct. You're really grasping at straws on that one if the ability to record three minute clips somehow constitutes an alibi.

Somehow, I think if you're worried about your safety while out in public, wearing a pair of "pervert glasses" isn't going to have the effect you're hoping for. I'd recommend the good ol' fashioned 2A approach instead.

As for dash cams, I personally don't own one, but also don't see anything particularly creepy about something that stays in your car mostly records footage of the exterior of other vehicles.

They're okay with the hypocrisy. Here in FL the governor has been pushing hard for eliminating property taxes for homesteads. If that passes, it will essentially defund the police. Yeah, can't say I recall that previously being a Republican position.

It all makes sense when you just realize their justification is "It's fine when we do it."

Usually it means they're an insufferable influencer (or believe themselves to be an influencer) and that's reason enough to hate them. Normal people don't go around wearing a camera on their face, hoping for something to happen in their mundane day-to-day life that will go viral on their social media accounts.

Presumably, cameras hidden in hats, pocket protectors, belt buckles, etc. are all still kosher. I guess you're not much of a hacker if you can't figure out how to hide a camera.

Should we tell him about Flock cameras?

MrBeast at some point straight up admitted that he gamed the YouTube algorithm and that it would be nearly impossible to replicate his success now. The guy is also definitely no Elon Musk when it comes to diversifying his businesses. His "virtual kitchen" burgers make Steak-n-Shake look like haute cuisine, and I really don't know what possessed him to conclude that America needed yet another brand of extremely mediocre chocolate snacks.

If we're going to go with life imitating art, my first thought was "What, was this guy tried in a Cardassian court?"

The sad reality is though, the fictional depiction of courts that establish guilt and have trials just for show was inspired by that sort of thing happening in the real world, long before it ever became a trope in fiction.

That reminds me, I have a free trial of Apple Music I need to cancel soon.

Honestly, I think the "churn between streaming services" approach only works if you're single. The second you've got anyone else living in your household, now it's a discussion over whether or not everyone else is done watching whatever else they were interested in. My solution to this is whatever exclusive content we're not subscribed to gets acquired through the high seas, dumped on the NAS, and can be watched through Kodi.

Netflix used to have a much bigger library. Now, it's basically the same deal as the rest of 'em - a few exclusives* and a bunch of crap no one's ever heard of.

* and they're all crime dramas, or shows written by writers who only know how to write crime dramas. I'm serious.

The real money seems to be in selling crap to people who are trying to get into the influencing gig. I just saw those dumb Meta glasses prominently placed right in the middle of the walkway the last time I was at the local Target. Now it makes sense.

Be sure to like, follow and subscribe!