Most active commenters
  • sadcherry(5)
  • albert_e(4)
  • master-lincoln(4)
  • JohnFen(4)
  • genrilz(3)
  • botanical76(3)

←back to thread

164 points thunderbong | 78 comments | | HN request time: 0.961s | source | bottom
1. albert_e ◴[] No.41855365[source]
Practically --

I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time.

(There are fingerprint sensors under mobile screens now ...and I think even some front facing cameras are being built in without sacrificing a punch hole / pixels. There is scope to make this better and seamless so we can have multiple cameras if we want behind a typical laptop screen or desktop monitor.)

This would make for a genuine look-at-the-camera video whether we are looking at other attendees in a meeting or reading off our slide notes (teleprompter style).

There would be no need to fake it.

More philosophically --

I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere. Cameras are supposed to capture reality by default. I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions.

Videos are and will be used for recording humans as they are. The capturing of their genuine features and expressions should be valued more. Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible. Videos will be used as memories of people bygone. Videos will be used as forensic or crime scene evidence.

Let us protect the current state of video capture. All AI enhancements should be marketed separately under a different name, not silently added into existing cameras.

replies(15): >>41855531 #>>41855684 #>>41855730 #>>41855733 #>>41856141 #>>41857383 #>>41857590 #>>41857839 #>>41858056 #>>41858420 #>>41859057 #>>41859076 #>>41859617 #>>41860060 #>>41863348 #
2. yieldcrv ◴[] No.41855531[source]
Or buy a specialty device for replicating the real world

Its been half a decade already from when I first noticed iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality, had to break out an ILC (DSLR without the SLR) to capture the world more congruently to how I see

replies(1): >>41857187 #
3. jrussino ◴[] No.41855684[source]
I agree with your philosophical stance, in general, but this particular use case is one that I've been wanting for years and where I think altering the image can be in some ways more "honest" than showing the raw camera feed.

With an unfiltered camera, it looks like I'm making eye contact with you when I'm actually looking directly at my camera, and likewise it looks like I'm staring off to the side when I'm looking directly at your image in my screen.

A camera centered behind my screen might be marginally better in that regard, but it still wouldn't look quite right.

What I'd really like to see is a filter for video conferencing that is aware of the position of your image on my screen, and modifies the angle of my face and eyes to more closely match what you would actually see from that perspective (e.g. it would look like I'm making direct eye contact when I'm looking at/near the position of your eyes on my screen).

You could imagine this working even for multiple users, where I might be paying attention to one participant or another, and each of their views of me would be updated so that the one I'm paying attention to can tell I'm looking directly at them, and the others know I'm not looking directly at them in that moment.

replies(2): >>41857303 #>>41861720 #
4. aitchnyu ◴[] No.41855733[source]
Will we have video with sensor signature for evidence purposes? One high court in India rejected any video evidence as a potential deepfake.
replies(2): >>41857743 #>>41858016 #
5. irjustin ◴[] No.41856275[source]
The line is very long and blurry the whole way. The extremes are completely naked 100% of the time with zero grooming and the opposite is eugenics or genetic engineering body/facial features (is what i've come to believe?).

Isn't it okay to feel good about looking good, sure (i love dressing up and doing my hair for occasions)! but obviously that can turn very problematic very fast. Honestly, I wish I knew where to draw the line in the sand. Is it makeup? piercings? nice clothes? surgery?

Just a parent with two daughters who has more questions than answers.

replies(2): >>41856428 #>>41859472 #
6. HeatrayEnjoyer ◴[] No.41856344[source]
Please, please, tell me this is sarcasm.
replies(1): >>41857529 #
7. ndndjdjdn ◴[] No.41856357[source]
Next up. Stop taking showers people!
replies(3): >>41857540 #>>41864050 #>>41874184 #
8. exitb ◴[] No.41856427[source]
Makeup is a personal preference. What OP talked about is subtly and transparently putting AI in a pipeline where we don't expect it. And it's not hypothetical, rather it already happens. Video meeting software is doing all kinds of sound rejection based on an unknown set of rules, even though none of us enabled that as a feature.
replies(2): >>41858276 #>>41861342 #
9. InDubioProRubio ◴[] No.41856428{3}[source]
Surgery is permanent, life-long change- beauty, is relevant for 20years+
10. voidUpdate ◴[] No.41856446[source]
Guys, you don't need to modify cars ever! They're fine as they are!
replies(2): >>41856459 #>>41864076 #
11. DidYaWipe ◴[] No.41856459{3}[source]
Are you seriously advancing that as a valid comparison?
replies(1): >>41856472 #
12. voidUpdate ◴[] No.41856472{4}[source]
Yes
replies(1): >>41864963 #
13. lloeki ◴[] No.41857187[source]
> iphones cant capture a red world when wild fires are messing up the air quality

s/iPhones/the iPhone Camera.app/

Apps like Halide and Pro Camera have no trouble handing you over control of white balance. I've captured both faint aurora borealis and red/brown hue when sand and dust is brought over to inland Europe by scirocco with great success.

14. wruza ◴[] No.41857303[source]
Would be funny if everyone on your screen gave a side eye to the bottom right corner where the currently speaking person is.

Jokes aside, I think you're absolutely right. Online interactions have dynamic geometry, so mounting a camera behind a screen will just not cut it, unless the entire screen is a camera. Also, some people might prefer projecting/receiving no eye contact at all, at times, in situations. And vice versa.

Philosophical stance here is purely traditionalist, it decides on behalf of people. What people would like to use, that should exist. "Videos are and will" is a strange claim, assuming its claimer has neither control over it nor any sort of affirmation that it is going to be true.

replies(2): >>41857978 #>>41858436 #
15. YeahThisIsMe ◴[] No.41857383[source]
I agree with this.

I don't actually want the person I'm talking to to appear to be looking directly into my eyes because it's weird - it means they're looking at the camera and not at me on the screen, talking to them.

replies(3): >>41857855 #>>41858471 #>>41860614 #
16. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41857529{3}[source]
I don't think it was. And I agree: make up is like putting a mask on to hide who you really are because society taught you that you are more valuable this way. People might think they do this for themselves, but it has been put into their mind by media and adverts. This is not healthy and also wasted resources.
replies(1): >>41860595 #
17. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41857540{3}[source]
How is this a fair comparison? There are health benefits to hygiene, there are none from make-up
replies(3): >>41857964 #>>41858855 #>>41858905 #
18. TowerTall ◴[] No.41857590[source]
> under-the-LED-display cameras

If people laugh with their mouths open, wouldn’t a camera placed below the LED display capture the inside of their mouths, and the rest of the time just point straight up their noses?

replies(1): >>41857850 #
19. prmoustache ◴[] No.41857743[source]
> One high court in India rejected any video evidence as a potential deepfake.

Well I would have expected any court would have stopped accepting audio and video as evidence by now.

replies(2): >>41858581 #>>41859132 #
20. vitorsr ◴[] No.41857839[source]
> I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions.

Critically, the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation.

replies(1): >>41860715 #
21. albert_e ◴[] No.41857850[source]
I meant the camera will be invisible and BEHIND the screen .... just not visible as a punch hole/notch.

I think some mobile phones have already done this...where they are able to put a camera behind the pixels.

22. smeej ◴[] No.41857855[source]
Somehow I've apparently made a different adjustment to this than most people. My therapist was commenting on it the other day, how I do look directly into the camera when I want her to see me as making "eye contact," rather than looking directly at where I see her eyes.

She's taking this as an autistic adaptation NT people are less likely to make, like my gestures are practiced and tailored for the sake of the other, not my own sake. I want to "look in her eyes" to make a point, because that's one of the ways you show people you're making an important point, not to see how she's responding to what I'm saying.

I haven't done any of it on purpose. It's apparently just how I've adapted to the weird communication space of having a gap between actually looking at someone's eyes and being seen to be looking at someone's eyes.

replies(1): >>41859976 #
23. wruza ◴[] No.41857964{4}[source]
Yeah, looks don’t get you anywhere in this world as a woman. /s

…We may talk all day how bad and unfair that is, but none of that changes the reality for an average person out there.

replies(1): >>41859635 #
24. albert_e ◴[] No.41857978{3}[source]
Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera.

There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen.

Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too.

Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable.

replies(4): >>41858116 #>>41859898 #>>41865534 #>>41884042 #
25. aspenmayer ◴[] No.41858016[source]
There are emerging standards for this.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24271083/youtube-c2pa-ca...

replies(1): >>41860211 #
26. xattt ◴[] No.41858056[source]
I always thought that under-screen cameras would come as a bug-eye lens, with the sensors between pixels. The pitch of modern mini-LED displays seems to have enough space between pixels to fit them in.
27. ◴[] No.41858116{4}[source]
28. tomooot ◴[] No.41858276{3}[source]
It took me a couple of years to notice the "beautify" filter on my samsung S7 as I only ever activated the screen side camera by accident. When I did eventually use it a bit, I subconsciously knew something was off but assumed it was just spec differences between the two sensors and lenses, but then I noticed the "eyeball star twinkle" and realised what was up.

On closer inspection it turns out it was actually smoothing my hair and boosting the contrast so I looked like I had dyed "highlights", along with airbrushing my cheeks a flat orangey coloured skin tone with a rosy center, as if I were wearing foundation and blusher!

29. IanCal ◴[] No.41858420[source]
I get the general philosophical point but to take a fun counterargument - cameras don't record the moment. They record a very narrow snapshot in time. One you, or anyone around you, may not recognise.

Have you ever looked at a group of friends and thought "ONE OF YOU IS BLINKING"? No. Yet it's quite common to have a photo where at least one person is mid-blink. The 30-year lifespan of that photo includes the milliseconds they were blinking. Is it untrue to have a picture where two people were not blinking and standing side by side? They did in real life, in those same poses, but fractions of a second apart. Is it a failure to capture reality by having a picture of them with their eyes open? Maybe - or maybe the blending of several moments is more true to the original situation than any specific snapshot could be.

> I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time.

That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group.

> Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible.

I agree, but having people be able to actually look at each other is surely part of this.

replies(3): >>41858544 #>>41858754 #>>41859086 #
30. ◴[] No.41858436{3}[source]
31. mannykannot ◴[] No.41858471[source]
Indeed - intense eye contact can be unsettling, even without the additional information gleaned from knowing that the other party has chosen to look at the camera.

Eye contact is a subtle and important dynamic in human interaction (to the point where it has been suggested that we have white sclera, while our closest ape cousins do not, as an adaptation in support of easily detecting eye contact.) In a meeting, that includes third parties seeing who is making eye contact with whom.

The systems being discussed here are too simple to restore this natural dynamic, and it is not clear to me that always-on eye contact correction[1] is free of unintended and undesirable consequences - for example, in some circumstances, it might ramp up the tension in a discussion, or it might help someone who is dissembling.

[1] Even with random look-aways, I suspect - in actual conversation, look-aways are often correlated with what's going on in the discussion.

32. albert_e ◴[] No.41858544[source]
> That doesn't fully solve the problem because you'd be looking at the middle of the screen not at the person talking to you in a group.

Repeating my comment on a sibling ...

Once we have technology to put a camera under a screen without sacrificing display quality ... we will not stop at one camera. There will be an array of cameras covering say every 2x2 inch square of your screen.

Just see how many cameras are on todays phones. Same can happen with new camera tech too.

Also there will be a huge commercial driver to put multiple cameras under the screen -- all apps and marketers can track your precise gaze. Ads will pause unless you are actually watching them. I will hate it but it feels inevitable

replies(1): >>41858637 #
33. agos ◴[] No.41858581{3}[source]
that would be a lot of baby throwing along the bathwater
replies(1): >>41858786 #
34. vlovich123 ◴[] No.41858637{3}[source]
Honestly I’ll take the software correction approach. Seems cheaper. I’ll also challenge about whether people actually care about the philosophical position about live editing. Zoom filters to ade makeup and other realtime and non realtime filters are popular. Movies have special effects. I think this purism isn’t helpful given what it seems that people actually want, not to mention that the concept of “true image” is so tenuous (eg no picture of the aurora borealis or the Milky Way is actually what your eye would see).
35. ballenf ◴[] No.41858754[source]
Artwork can be more true to reality than a photograph.
36. ballenf ◴[] No.41858786{4}[source]
Similar to how hearsay evidence is thrown out, despite it potentially having substantial value. Court is exactly the place you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
37. hgomersall ◴[] No.41858855{4}[source]
I'm not sure there are any established health benefits of showering routinely. Cleaning in response to contamination, sure, but every day with lots of soap etc I'm more sceptical of.
38. genrilz ◴[] No.41858905{4}[source]
This is actually probably more fair of a comparison then you'd think. Daily showers are bad for health your health[0], but I absolutely do them because my body produces a lot of oil and odor. This is a cosmetic reason similar to make-up.

[0]: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-ne...

replies(2): >>41859017 #>>41864066 #
39. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41859017{5}[source]
You said daily, nobody prior did. Once a month is probably more beneficial than not at all...
replies(1): >>41859351 #
40. mikae1 ◴[] No.41859057[source]
> I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras

Everything but your smartphone is big enough that you'd to sprinkle your entire screen area with sensors to get the sense of me looking at you. And, that won't be cheap.

Say my laptop had a sensor dead center and I was in a group chat. Only the person dead center would see me looking to the camera.

This is better done in software.

41. JohnFen ◴[] No.41859076[source]
> I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere.

I agree. This is one of the things that I actively worry about.

42. JohnFen ◴[] No.41859086[source]
> cameras don't record the moment. They record a very narrow snapshot in time.

Isn't a "moment" a very narrow snapshot in time by definition?

replies(1): >>41861162 #
43. JohnFen ◴[] No.41859132{3}[source]
All I know is that I personally have stopped giving audio and video any benefit of the doubt. I think it's risky to accept any recording as representative of truth unless you or someone you trust was there at the time of the recording to vouch for its correctness.
44. JohnFen ◴[] No.41859162[source]
I fundamentally agree with you, but I wanted to mention the most common reaction I've got from women when discussing this topic: women mostly don't put on makeup for the benefit of men. It has more to do with societal expectation, setting social status with other women, and very often that they like that it's a mask.
45. genrilz ◴[] No.41859351{6}[source]
I feel like we might have been reading the original arguments in different ways, so let me summarize how I see this thread:

I interpreted ndndjdjdn's comment as sarcasm. (due to the use of the phrase "next up") That is, I think he was saying that if you take sadcherry's logic to its limit, then people wouldn't shower or would shower less. sadcherry's logic is that people shouldn't wear make-up because it cosmetic is not beneficial to health. Thus I think ndndjdjdn was talking about the fact that people use showers for cosmetic reasons, and believes sadcherry probably doesn't actually want people to shower less, and so should probably rethink his views about make-up.

You then posted your comment, saying that the health benefits of showers justify them even if they do have cosmetic benefits.

I then comment, saying that I shower in a way that is bad for my health because of cosmetic reasons. I wanted to imply that a lot of people shower like this, and therefor the fact that moderate showers might have some health benefits is irrelevant, because the way many/most people shower is actually unhealthy. I probably should have been more explicit about the fact that I thought many/most other people shower in unhealthy ways.

As an aside, I don't actually know of any concrete benefits to health besides making sure open wounds don't get infected. I tried to search the web for other benefits, and the only additional ones I got are exfoliation (which is cosmetic) and relaxation. (but relaxing things aren't generally classified as "healthy") With that in mind, I tend to believe the health benefits of showers are probably pretty over-hyped, (though not non-existent) and more like a cultural fiction to keep people showering than true knowledge.

I'd be interested to hear if you have a different take.

replies(1): >>41859501 #
46. ddingus ◴[] No.41859472{3}[source]
What we did was draw the line at anything that might close a door in life they may prefer remain open.

Messing with hair in our youth is fun and it grows back. No worries.

Modest piercings society does not frown on. . No tattoos and especially none on the face, hands, etc...

We had boys and girls and it went OK. Not too much complaining and when they became adults, we handed them the keys and wished them well and help where and how we can.

Maybe our experiences help with understanding yours.

47. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41859501{7}[source]
I agree on this, I previously didn't interpret the showering as a cosmetic action, but see that this line of thought would make sense now.

To your aside of health benefits of showers: I also tried to research this, but other than getting rid of contamination (hazardous elements e.g. during construction or demolishing, or just dirt on wounds) I couldn't find any serious claim that washing the skin is beneficial for health (outside of making sure hands are clean before touching food or mucous membranes), I just assumed there should be one.

I take my confident stance on this back...

48. taeric ◴[] No.41859617[source]
Beam splitting is a thing. Elgato has a lowish cost one that works quite well.
49. Mountain_Skies ◴[] No.41859635{5}[source]
What it really does is create an arms race within women, where those who opt out, with a few exceptions, are at a disadvantage to those who continue on and escalate. As a group, it would be a quality-of-life improvement for most, if they as a group ended the arms race but since there's no way for the group to enforce that, the arms race continues, with social media and technique videos advancing the front even further. For some the cost of participating in war becomes more expensive than the downsides, so they opt out and simply live with the disadvantage.
50. iwontberude ◴[] No.41859898{4}[source]
If that happened I would become a drastically different person because no one may control people’s bodies like that except for themselves. God that really made me angry to read. I really really hope you are wrong.
replies(1): >>41860363 #
51. Iku_Tri ◴[] No.41859976{3}[source]
I don't want to be mean to your therapist, but really?

Understanding camera eyelines counts as autistic now?

You're fine doing that. Sorry, but that comment she made really sent me.

Reminds me of how the film department forced the digital artists to take a Cinematography and lighting classed irl so their final project renders would improve.

replies(1): >>41860641 #
52. renewiltord ◴[] No.41860060[source]
The really sad thing is that we take raw sensor data and process it at all. People are so out of touch with things these days we use lenses to focus the picture etc. Why not just transmit the raw sensor data instead of processing everything so much? People could just use their minds (I know, ridiculous to ask people to do that in this era where everything is spoon fed to you) and actually interpret things for once.

What a society! Processed food, plastics in their blood, processed sensor data. Ugh, we have strayed so far from natural interactions.

Philosophically we have abandoned being mindful of where we are, and just being our natural forms instead of being slaves to what some computer is telling you that you should be seeing.

53. sharpshadow ◴[] No.41860211{3}[source]
So one could upload the original footage directly to YouTube to get the authenticity label and put it on private then proceed with the usual edits and provide the link to the private video as prove that it’s real.
replies(1): >>41860249 #
54. aspenmayer ◴[] No.41860249{4}[source]
Presumably that would break the chain of custody metadata, or would leave provenance breadcrumbs leading back to the original unedited video?

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15446725?hl=en

> Limitations

> “Captured with a camera” only appears if a creator opts to use C2PA technology during filming. If it’s missing, it doesn’t mean the content has modified audio or visuals.

> Note: This feature is separate from our existing altered and synthetic disclosures.

> The metadata that leads to a “Captured with a camera” disclosure is made by a 3rd party (for example, a camera manufacturer). This means there is some risk that someone could take a photo of another screen showing synthetic content. Because the other screen shows an image that has been modified, it wouldn’t be eligible for the “Captured with a camera” disclosure. This issue is called “air-gapping.” Camera manufacturers will continue to develop detection measures to prevent “air-gapping,” but the sophistication of those detection measures may vary in the near term.

https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gen-ai-content-tran...

55. botanical76 ◴[] No.41860303[source]
I think the only case where a woman's use of makeup can be considered fake is when she lies about using it.

Otherwise, it is just another way humans choose to dress their external appearance for their own pleasure, fulfilment and social intentions. It's not as if it's hard to tell when someone is wearing makeup - that is, at least when you're close enough to be able to inspect their imperfections at all.

It seems to me that this idea about makeup being 'fake' stems from heteronormative dating, where a man may feel he is unable to properly assess a woman's beauty (and her attractiveness to him) if her face has been changed in arbitrary ways. But personally, I don't think we should optimize all human encounters for dating efficiency. More broadly, there is no social contract which stipulates you must wield your natural appearance at all times. I think we need not add more social expectations to an already long list.

replies(1): >>41864090 #
56. silver_silver ◴[] No.41860363{5}[source]
Ads already pause if you switch apps on mobile, and vending machines/retail screens have had cameras in them for expression/attention tracking for years. It’s not much of a leap from there
57. botanical76 ◴[] No.41860595{4}[source]
I partially agree with this, but at the same time... I don't feel that shunning the use of makeup and telling people their preferences are actually a result of societal brainwash is a good solution.

If the problem is that society (in bubble X, Y or Z) teaches us our value is judged solely based on our appearance, then we should address the lessons we teach. I feel it is unproductive to play whac-a-mole with the emergent symptoms of such an underlying problem.

58. boneitis ◴[] No.41860614[source]
> because it's weird

I don't get many opportunities to express my exasperation with the paradigm of the youtube content creator's thousand video cuts per spoken sentence, but hell, in the same way, I think it's just $#@%ing weird.

59. smeej ◴[] No.41860641{4}[source]
It might be one thing if I had done it on purpose, because I was thinking about camera eyelines. But it wasn't deliberate. I subconsciously choose based on how another person will see me, because I don't really expect to get a whole lot of information from seeing them. Something about this being a type of "masking" in autistic women, trying harder to get my social cues across to others, but not expecting myself to receive them.

I think maybe I have "trauma masquerading as ASD," because the symptoms are subjectively improving as I learn to down-regulate my nervous system, but then I don't much care what label gets put on why I'm weird. I'm much more interested in figuring out what to do with the different ways I'm weird. I'm old enough that I can't think of ways formal diagnosis would help me, so I'd rather assume each challenge is treatable until I find out that it isn't.

60. jMyles ◴[] No.41860715[source]
> the enumerated computational processing units are global transformations, while tampering is inherently a local, "contentful" transformation.

This is a brilliant way to examine / explain the distinction.

61. wizzwizz4 ◴[] No.41861162{3}[source]
Colloquially, "the moment" also includes the context, both immediate and general.
62. beeflet ◴[] No.41861342{3}[source]
> Video meeting software is doing all kinds of sound rejection based on an unknown set of rules, even though none of us enabled that as a feature.

It's optional on discord. Besides, it's conceivable that you might create a similar effect with a nice audio hardware setup

63. hammock ◴[] No.41861720[source]
“Eye contact” is not a monolith though. Typically we look at someone’s eyes when we are speaking but their mouth when they are speaking. And eye contact can be a pattern of crossing between their left and right eyes. And making and breaking eye contact are important parts of nonverbal communication. The typical AI “eye contact correction” will do none of this.
replies(1): >>41861934 #
64. redwall_hp ◴[] No.41861934{3}[source]
It's also extremely culturally dependent. (Never mind that plenty of people in countries that obsess over eye contact find it uncomfortable as well.)

It's generally considered rude or an act of intimidation to maintain eye contact with people in Japan, for example. Not nodding occasionally while someone is talking is also seen as a sign that you're not paying attention. Are we going to modify videos to nod automatically too? Or maybe we can stop trying to fake social interactions and enforcing local customs on the world.

65. jpicard ◴[] No.41863348[source]
Here's a webcam that has a small arm that drops down placing the sensor in front of the screen. It blocks a little bit of the screen, but allows more eye contact, without using AI to modify eyes.

https://icontactcamera.com/

66. sadcherry ◴[] No.41864050{3}[source]
Guys who equate stopping to spend 30+ minutes a day painting your face with stopping to shower are part of the problem.

It's exactly those unnatural expectations of looks that are put on women, starting at a really young age, that are the issue here. Not boys, just girls. It skews expectations and boom, everybody feels like they have to do it. It's very sad. I'm not saying don't shower, don't cut or even brush your hair, etc. All fine. But the full-on makeup you see walking through a random city in the morning, geez, what are we doing to ourselves. And what are the guys doing? Nothing close to it, but spend a lot of time justifying it.

67. sadcherry ◴[] No.41864066{5}[source]
There are parts of my body which, if not cleaned daily, will stink uncomfortably. Harvard webpage or not.

I'd equate perfuming it over to make-up, not showering..

It's also quite sad that a statement "we should put less make-up on" is immediately drifting into a discussion about not showering. Way to ridicule a viewpoint.

replies(1): >>41872907 #
68. sadcherry ◴[] No.41864076{3}[source]
If guys do that to adhere to societal norms, then thats equally sad.
69. sadcherry ◴[] No.41864090{3}[source]
The pure fact that there is an asymmetry between men and women w.r.t. makeup renders your argument void.
replies(1): >>41870744 #
70. DidYaWipe ◴[] No.41864963{5}[source]
Invalid.
71. sgerenser ◴[] No.41865534{4}[source]
Eye tracking doesn’t require that many cameras, one or two will do. Just look at the Vision Pro, that’s its primary input mechanism.
72. UniverseHacker ◴[] No.41868790[source]
It’s fine if you don’t want to wear makeup, but it’s not your business if other people want to. Your statement seems to assume they are doing it for your benefit specifically, or mistakenly in general, which is not the case- you are being condescending telling people not to do something but you are the one misunderstanding why they are doing it.
73. botanical76 ◴[] No.41870744{4}[source]
You said "for the same reason I reject wearing makeup" which implied, to me, that you feel people should not (I assume you mean, regularly) wear wakeup because "capturing of their genuine features and expressions should be valued more."

I said, or intended to convey, that it is a personal preference. It really need not matter to others how a person, be it man or woman, chooses to dress their appearance (though of course there is a line, for example most places would encourage that you wear clothes in public.)

I don't believe that the asymmetry between men and women changes this. There may exist:

- an asymmetry between the beauty standards which are applied to men and women, or;

- an asymmetry between the pressure that men and women experience to enhance their natural appearance, or;

- any other difference of expectation between men and women.

I personally feel many of these expectations are harmful overall. However, this need not invalidate a person's choice to dress their face with makeup, and throwing more expectations (even unpopular ones) into the mix will certainly not alleviate this asymmetry.

edit: perhaps I could make it a little more clear that I have a lot of distaste for the way the world works for women. I agree with you largely and I think it's unfair. I just think there's a very large jump from 'women should not feel the need to wear makeup' to 'women should not wear makeup.'

replies(1): >>41876568 #
74. genrilz ◴[] No.41872907{6}[source]
EDIT: I got arguments mixed up. It's master-lincoln who was making the health arguments, not you. You were talking about not holding women to unreasonable beauty standards. I mostly agree, although how to actually stop doing that is very much an unresolved question. I'm leaving this comment here because I think it is interesting, I may explore how to break down beauty standards in a future comment.

First off, I know this is long. It is long because I am having to deconstruct the way we think about showering and make-up. I do think the deconstruction is interesting, but I wouldn't blame you for deciding not to read this.

Though ndndjdjdn's comment was phrased pretty snarkily, but I do think it is a good point. I'll try to explain why, addressing the first and last points, followed by the middle point:

I grew up on a farm. It can smell "bad", especially right after a rain storm. However, since I lived there my entire childhood, it mostly just smelled different rather than bad. I wasn't bothered by it like visitors were, though if I had to pick, I'd prefer the non-after-rainstorm way it smelled to the after-rainstorm smell.

If everybody stopped showering, then everybody would start smelling "bad". I'm sure people would adapt quickly enough, though they would still probably prefer the smell of people who regularly shower to some extent. Thus people tend towards the "showered" state to be more appealing to other people, even though people would probably get used to it if we all eliminated regular showering from our habits.

Similarly, I have seen both IRL and online where men think women who aren't wearing make-up are sickly or ugly, and that women who are wearing natural make-up aren't actually wearing make-up. If a woman stopped wearing make-up, then men would suddenly find that woman to be less appealing, though men would probably get somewhat used to it if all women stopped using make-up. Thus women are pressured to be in the "make-up" state, even though men would probably get used to it if all women eliminated make-up use from their habits.

I would like to note that the logic of the last two paragraphs is the same. Thus, my rebuttal to your point that the body would stink "uncomfortably" is that it probably wouldn't be uncomfortable if everyone stopped showering.

Now to address the middle point. I don't think there is a meaningful difference between showering and showering + wearing perfume (which I will call "perfumed" from hear on). People being in the "showered" state is considered normal, and from that point of normalcy, being in the "unshowered" state is bad and the "perfumed" state is good. However, if we are trying to figure out the best way for the world to be, I don't think what is currently "normal" should matter at all.

Now let's lay out the states people can be in:

Smell wise, people can be in the "unshowered", "showered", and "perfumed" states. As laid out in the comment you are replying to, "unshowered", or at least not daily showered, is the healthiest of these states.

Sight wise, women can be in the "no make-up" or "make-up" states. As you point out, health wise the "no make-up" state is the healthiest of these states.

Thus, if we are prioritizing health above cosmetic appeal, everybody should be in the "unshowered" and "no make-up" state. As I have argued earlier, everyone would probably get used to this eventually, but there would always be pressure for people to shower and wear make-up. Thus I think it is inconsistent to want people to be in the "showered" and "no make-up" state if you are arguing health is the reason. My personal take is that we should just let people make whatever choices they want based on their own values, and not mine or yours.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. I hope you at least found that interesting. If you did read all the way through, I'd be interested to hear your response.

75. jujube3 ◴[] No.41874184{3}[source]
Sir, this is Hacker News. Nobody here takes showers.
76. sadcherry ◴[] No.41876568{5}[source]
I think that's what I tried to express, just with less words and more clumsily.

Fellow women should feel encouraged to reject this pressure.

77. grepfru_it ◴[] No.41884042{4}[source]
Dell Inspirons have camera below the screen. It is a horrible vantage point and a reason why it is not cloned by many manufacturers
replies(1): >>41893742 #
78. magarnicle ◴[] No.41893742{5}[source]
By "below" they mean behind the glass.