Traveling with Apple Vision Pro

Welcome to the forum. I think that's an unfair take. They say specifically that anything more than a very simple conversation (what would you like? tea please) and they'll take it off.

Why do you care what a kooky murder thinks? What do you think Ted Bundy thinks about this? What do you think Charles Manson thinks? Jeff Dahmer?

Did any of them write a book on technology?

Oh no the terrorist/murderer wouldn't like this gadget :((((((

Take it off for all interactions with others, yes even “would you like a drink? Yes, tea”.

Why is that simple interaction somehow exempted from “showing others respect”?

Like is he too busy blasting porn into his retinas to take it off?

Or has he paused whatever he’s using the headset for for even that interaction?

Then why leave the mask on?

The whole pass thru tech is so you can see a keyboard or pick up a cup or write something down on paper.

The digital recreation of eyes is a strange dystopian solution looking for a problem.

Saying “I’ve yet to have a problem” is absurd cope.

Ps- welcome to the forum to you too. Apparently I should assume you’re new here or you’d understand that even people who have been participating here for years can still create new accounts.

No, but I fail to see how that matters.

I don't care if he wrote the fucking Bible - he's a mass murderer and the world was better with him in Supermax.

Side note, he was an extremely talented math nerd and his manifesto did raise some interesting questions about technology and society.

I wouldn't exactly call him a "mass murderer", he only actually killed 3 people over a 17 year time span. IMO a "mass murderer" kills a lot of people all at once in a single location, for example, like McVeigh.

There’s a high of friction for taking AVP off and on. It’s not as simple as locking/unlocking an iPhone or folding a laptop. Not only is the fit hard to get right, but it takes 3-5 seconds to unlock with OpticID. Might not sound like much, but it’s friction.

He only successfully killed 3 people - he definitely tried to kill more. That has to enter into the calculus. Not only that, by sending his packages through the mail he endangered many many more people in the process.

Relatedly: What's the threshold for you for body count before someone loses credibility? 5? 10? 100? 1000?

> Relatedly: What's the threshold for you for body count before someone loses credibility? 5? 10? 100? 1000?

I don't think any of those necessarily makes someone lose credibility for their writings.

Credibility for what?

I think you and I fundamentally differ on this point then.

In this case, his views on technology. I'm sorry, someone who thinks the solution to the problem is to mail bombs loses all credibility in my mind.

It is necessary for the problem and analysis to be linked like that?

When someone goes unhinged and starts a mail bombing campaign and then threatens to kill more people if newspapers don't print his unhinged rambling manifesto then yes I think it's very important that every mention of him be paired with understanding of the lives he ended. Fuck him. I'm glad he's dead, and I'm glad he rotted in Supermax first.

Now you just want a caveat? Your arguments are inconsistent and hard to follow.

yes, that's the joke

i don't, it was a joke