tomhow has just responded to my email. If I understand correctly, the HN mods feel that the “see everything” bit would cause less civil discussion in the comments.
I find v2 title okay-ish: it’s derived from the page title, and you can see what it’s about (as compared to v1). It doesn’t capture the degree of what Meta can see, though.
That's why they stopped making them, because the people who buy minis are willing to stick with them for 5 years, whereas Apple wants you to buy a new phone every year.
Every single person I know who uses a phone of more than 4 years old, uses an iPhone 13 mini. Without exception. Now I'm sure there's plenty of HNers who use other 4+ year old phones, but I'm talking about non-tech people.
> That's because they haven't came out with another small iPhone in more than four years.
They also haven't come out with another iPhone with a headphone jack, yet no one kept using those.
I get what you're saying, but what I think is that the average mini buyer is inherently someone (on average!) who changes their phone a lot less often. They're less likely to be glued to their phones. Bigger phones = more infinite scroll addiction, and so on. Apple doesn't want to cater to the mini buyers.
> That's because they haven't came out with another small iPhone in more than four years.
I kind of agree with the previous comment. I think if you spend a lot of time on the phone, have a lot of apps then it makes sense to upgrade your phone more frequently and also makes sense to have a larger screen and better battery life. So conversely, there is a correlation between people who have smaller phones and upgrade less frequently.
I have my iPhone 12mini for 5-6 years now, and I'd upgrade it now if there was a new small iPhone. But I would upgrade it 3 years ago.
Yes it has, in a way that goes directly against HN guidelines. The page title is "Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything”".
Why was the title changed from "The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything" to "A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses"? It doesn't go against any guidelines:
> Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
> If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link.
> If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
> Terms like "hidden" and "see everything" are in a title are clickbait.
The one containing "hidden" is the one you apparently changed it to originally - I don't think GP can, nor has any reason to - so you initially changed it to.. clickbait?
It seems a serious reach to call "see everything" clickbait.
> First-ever in-utero stem cell therapy for fetal spina bifida repair is safe, study finds
Currently 9th on the front page, is "is safe" also clickbait, since surely it's not 100.0% safe, just like with "see everything" it's surely not every single frame?
The large number of replies this renaming got in a short timeframe is because it's not in line with what we're used to when it comes to title changes on HN.
Can we discuss the issue without being accusatory and interrogatory. The point of the guidelines (about titles and everything else) is so we can discuss things curiously, without getting riled up.
OK I've looked in the logs and here's what happened.
The originally submitted title was: The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything.
That title was created by the submitter; it's not the original title and it's not a verbatim line of text from anywhere in the article.
It's also, arguably, clickbait, which I gather is why another moderator changed it to: A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses.
Their intention was to make the title less baity and be closer to a verbatim line from the article (a line in the subheading is "Behind Meta’s new smart glasses lies a hidden workforce").
That's what triggered all the complaints.
I then changed it to a title that is a verbatim string from the HTML title, with the baity part at the end removed. That is bog standard title editing of the kind I've done every day for the several years I've been doing this job.
> First-ever in-utero stem cell therapy for fetal spina bifida repair is safe, study finds
"Is safe" is not an absolutist claim, but even since your comment was submitted, another moderator has – correctly – changed "first-ever" to "first", because "first-ever" is absolutist and baity.
> The large number of replies this renaming got in a short timeframe is because it's not in line with what we're used to when it comes to title changes on HN.
What I've described above is what HN moderators do several times each day. I think the reaction to this one is because it's a topic that inherently gets people riled up (understandably), and people's riled-up-ness will spill over to any perception that we're "suppressing" the story. But we're not suppressing the story; it is still at top spot, and it will stay on the front page for several hours and everyone will have every chance to read it and discuss it.
The title we've arrived at now is the one that's most consistent with the guidelines.
> and people's riled-up-ness will spill over to any perception that we're "suppressing" the story
It’s just a hot topic. The A hidden workforce one was way off, which is why people might have got that impression. I don’t think this was intentional, but I can understand where the backlash is coming from :)
Isn’t “nothing is truly safe” a common saying on HN? Safe is an absolute term and since nothing can be safe people usually avoid using safe as a standalone attribution to something. It is usually qualified in some way.
I was just curious. This “nothing is safe” is just burnt into my brain and simply wanted to know the reason because it sounded so far fetched that safe is not absolute. But I totally agree.
For the record, now it has changed again, to ’Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns’, which is even more milquetoast.
Parent and another comment reacting to this change have also been (artificially, I must assume) sunk from top to below gems like ’Too funny that the subcontractor working for meta is “sama”’.
> It's a real trade-off though and I'm thankful for any feedback, including this one.
Feedback: If your app is going to use 10GB of storage, tell the user in advance and give them a one-click way to remove it. Just basic manners. Don't pick your nose at the dinner table. It's not hard, just common decency.
> even the ones who are so often experience "approval fatigue". Not having to ask for approval is valuable.
This is by and large a short-term pro for Anthropic. It's often not one for the user, and in the long-term, often barely even for the company. In any case, it's a great example of putting Anthropic priorities above the users'. Which is fine and happens all the time, but in this case just isn't necessary. Similar to the AGENTS.md case. We're on the cusp of a pattern establishing here and that's something you'll want to stop before it's ossified.
agree to this if their target market is only developers
but over 90% of their users are non technical so removing that approval step is the correct move in a product sense.
users install cowork for the magic, 10gb is negligible. these days even steam games are 50gb+ and you care more about the gameplay than the disk space.
> I think they (and even Apple) are going to get a walloping from mostly ceding the education market to chromebooks.
I think this is an Americentric view. As far as I can tell, the mass adoption of Chromebooks for education is just the US, which is 4% of the world population. And in this particular case there's little reason to believe it will suddenly propagate everywhere else - the US education ceding has been going on for years, and yet it's still confined. It's not like the iPhone which started in the US and within a few years rapidly gained ground in Japan, then Europe and so on.
> why are they abandoning their strongest exclusives (Windows, Office)
They're abandoning the consumer versions of these, not the enterprise versions. The consumer versions are the competitive market, where they're competing against iPads and such. They're not abandoning Windows for businesses, Office for businesses, where there is still no established business end-user OS/office suite alternative.
Of course they have a choice, just like you do. You're making excuses for them that they don't need. They're actively choosing the "work at Meta and maintain lifestyle" rather than "don't work at Meta and maybe slightly change lifestyle". Every day, they make that choice.
Take all the people who get and got laid off. Their life goes on.
> responsiblities that come with obvious, healthy, lifestyle choices (i.e. marriage and kids)
99.9999% of people in the world who are married with kids, don't work at Meta.
Unfortunately, because 99.999% of people in the world are “customers” of Meta, making profit for Meta, the 0.001% of people who do work at Meta are paid like relative kings.
I think you're arguing with a point I didn't make. I'm not excusing anyone. I'm describing a mechanism in response to "I cannot comprehend why." Here, why people stay in situations they might privately find distasteful. That's a different project than assigning moral grades.
"They have a choice" is of course literally true. It's also not very interesting? Everyone always has a choice in the tautological sense. The question the parent raised was how do people live with it, and the answer is: the same way people live with all kinds of things. Incrementally, surrounded by context that makes it feel normal, with stakes that feel high relative to their baseline, not yours.
Your 99.9999% stat kind of makes my point for me. Those people also didn't get a $400k offer from Meta. The trap isn't marriage+kids, it's young + don't know better + land there + marriage + kids+a lifestyle calibrated to a specific income, plus the identity that comes with it. The golden handcuffs thing is a cliché because it's real.
None of this is a defense of working on things you find unconscionable. It's just that "they could simply choose not to" has never once in history been a sufficient explanation of human behavior.
> I have something really priceless and rare, complete luxury of choice, and 99% of people don't
People working at Meta are almost without exception, people who have more luxury of choice than nearly anyone on the planet. It's very important to keep repeating this, and not say the direct opposite as you did. You can make your point without doing so.
You keep restating that Meta employees are enormously privileged as though that contradicts me. It doesn't - it's the premise. The entire phenomenon I'm describing, in response to "I cannot comprehend why", is that privilege and felt optionality are different things, and the gap between them is where people get stuck.
Partly, but that flattens it. It's not just awareness, the actual cost of exit is different. Me walking away from a job means I’m a little more lonely, that’s it. I never sold any stock until I left, I’m down $5K total in 3 years. A Meta engineer with a family walking away means pulling kids out of school, selling a house, a spouse's life getting upended. Those aren't the same choice with different levels of self-knowledge. They're materially different choices.
Streaming someone live to Meta, potentially the most evil company in the world (not "per employee" but by "damage done per day") without their permission, especially in a place where this is not at a expected - like an office rather than a football stadium - is great justification. It ticks all the boxes.
Original HN title - The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything
Editorialized HN title v1, 7 hours after post - A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses
Editorialized HN title v2 - Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
reply