I took the time to read the fine print, and these glasses appear to sense the vector of reflected light and specifically filter out waves with a horizontal orientation. The processimg power needed to do this will mean these must have an uncomfortably large battery or require frequent charging.
Polarization is kind of just magic. Which means these sunglasses might actually require mana points to use.
Well not nothing. They do block the sun.
so can litery anything else
Clear glass. A ziplock bag. Wind. Thoughts and prayers. Sunblock - dammit.
The most wild feature about my sunglasses are that they have air pockets in the arms so they float if dropped in water.
Mine have interchangeable lenses, so I can swap them out for yellow or clear lenses if the light isn’t so bright but I still want UV protection, protection from magpies, or something to block the wind in my eyes.
DuckDuckGo should apply this lesson to their search engine!
I maintain that this should be the default behavior and the AI be opt-in
AI is the future of search and I dont see anyway that changes. The user experience of AI search is way to good, average users love the summary at the top of their search. Almost every report i’ve seen shows over 50% of people using AI for search and that tracks with what I see in people i know in real life.
I’m a DDG user and I do not want them to handicap themselves to pass a purity test.
Almost every report i’ve seen shows over 50% of people using AI for search
Because it’s not possible to search without there being an AI summary
No these are not reports that count someone viewing an AI summary on google as using AI for search.
then how do they count it? home else could someone be counting “AI usage in the search engine”?
I checked again to get a more up to date report and so that we actually have something to go off instead of my memory of some random reports. Pew finds 50% of people use chatbots and the most common use is searching for information. Also in the report the have a stat for reading AI summaries at the top of a search and that is 60% say that have, 10% dont know and 30% dont read it. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-and-ai-2026-chatbots-smart-devices-and-views-on-impact/
So its fair to say I was wrong and its not over 50% but its close to 50%.
Then opt in. We shouldn’t have to opt out to avoid padding the AI numbers.
Its a generalized product targeting average people. Average people dont care AI/No AI they want the results and they use the AI summaries. If DDG hid it then they would just think it doesnt exist and go use google which provides them faster more convenient results.
We’re talking about the same duckduckgo that had a huge poll about this right? The only data point that exists regarding what people want is that of the 175,354 users who took the poll, only 10% wanted AI features.
Yes we are talking about ddg which has roughly 100 million users and put out a poll to which 175k said they didnt want AI.
Its wrong though. Its wrong so fucking often. There’s no way to fix that. I stopped using ddg because of this. Pandering to right wing idiots does not necessarily mean being smart, that’s thatcherite Nazi coddling lies.
Ignoring the schizo half of your question, what would be an acceptable error rate for you?
The acceptable inaccurate result rate is 0%. I think that’s unachievable by LLM tech.
No search will ever give you the correct answer 100% of the time so I dont know why you’d draw such a dumb line in the sand.
I mean unless you dont use search engines, don’t use libraries, don’t talk to humans.
Almost every report i’ve seen shows over 50% of people using AI for search
Because people don’t know that they can turn it off, or they don’t know how to turn it off and it doesn’t bother them enough to find out how. If it was opt-in, that statistic would probably be 5% use AI for search.
This stat is people who use llm chatbots for search. It excludes summaries. I think that had 60% saying they did read the summaries 10% saying not sure and rest saying they didnt.
DuckDuckGo has taken a clear stance on generative AI and other LLM-based tools, having asked users whether they wanted AI results fully integrated into search. An overwhelming majority said no, which is why the company now keeps AI content and interactions confined to a separate page.
This is what I get when I run a DuckDuckGo search in a private window. Sure doesn’t look separate to me.
Click “show never” or “on demand”
which is far from
the company now keeps AI content and interactions confined to a separate page.
they are definitely not confining AI functions to that page.
Given the url, it would seem to be quite the opposite.
But of course it does something. It blocks light, and let a man stare at boobs discreetly.
Hey, don’t be sexist… They also let women stare at boobs discreetly
You’re right. Women also like to stare at boobs.
Another use case I failed to mention: staring at butts.
So they are perv glasses.
Normalizing glasses that look like Facebook perv glasses isn’t something I would want.
I worn glasses that made me look like a pervert long before it was a trend
Glasses that have cameras should require red led to be on at all times by law (when turned on).
I believe the Facebook glasses do have this.
The problem is just that the light is rather easy for an end-user to remove. And that it may be too dim to clearly see in brighter situations.
Sunglasses dont do ‘absolitely nothing’.
People will constantly cry about the fact that I’m not putting on sunscreen while they’re going out in the sun without sunglasses.
People are dumb. I could technically remove a cancerous mole myself, I can’t remove eye cancer myself. Or somehow unfuck my eyes once they’re damaged.
If you think you’re able to just remove skin cancer yourself, sorry but holy shit you’re delusional.
technically
If I cut the arm that has the cancerous mole on it off - the skin cancer is gone. Granted, I was thinking more carving it out - you know, the way doctors do.
No. Do not do this. This is how you end up with terrible cancer that spreads. Doctors don’t just start hacking away to carve out skin cancer. You are absolutely delusional or terribly misinformed like the person above said if you think you can just cut off the cancer at home.
It quite literally is just hacking away you moron - my uncle has had hundreds of cancerous moles removed, they literally cut away more flesh than just the mole to ensure the cancer doesn’t spread.
Fucks sake
This is you:
I could technically remove a cancerous mole myself.
Since you’re the smart one, and we’re all morons, I’ll defer to your expertise. You should totally just hack away at your suspected cancerous moles at home. Probably you should use a dull kitchen knife or whatever. Good luck!
And you’re sitting here suggesting that I’m wrong about cutting your fucking arm off to get rid of cancer.
Of course I’m not advocating that someone back alley ripper docs the fucking cancer out you trog
deleted by creator
They are all based on the same designs from like the 40s.
Being a pervert was hilarious until 2016
Dump people compensate with smart devices, they buy garbage trying to look smart.
Any one with a smartwatch looks dumber to me…
Can’t spell dumb for someone calling people dumb
Obviously it was a pun about people of the garbage dump buying garbage.
