Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It amazes me that people still worry about this when humans already walk around with two cameras connected to better resolution and light-level management hardware than the glass camera embedded in their skulls, and the input of those cameras, converted to audio, is generally admissible in all courts of law.


It may be sharable through speech, but a picture is worth a thousand words. Even the most detailed prose leaves much to the imagination. I don't think I'd even care if someone told a story about accidentally seeing me naked, but I'd be pretty pissed off if they were sharing a video.


What if they had photographic memory and a lot of drawing skills and were able to produce a drawing of you naked that was indistinguishable from a photo? Should we ostracize those people from society?


It is not true that we have two cameras in our eyes.

We do have visual sense. Completely different. The output of the system is a perception, an interpretation of reality.

Most of what you are seeing right now is going to be forgotten just in seconds. You only leave what holds your attention.

Cameras store the raw content of what they point to. That is gigabytes of information.

The speech information is barely kilobytes of information.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: