• RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That won’t really work. Modern cameras all have IR filters with the exception of security and trail cameras.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I took this picture of my office’s TV remote with my Samsung phone just now. You can see the IR just fine.

        • RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Your phone camera is seeing the overspill in other frequencies of light the LED is producing. Many remotes have an filter to hide those frequecies.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            I’m not at the house right now, but my phone camera also sees the IR LEDs on my game camera, on my security cameras, and more.

            I also have a filter that looks black to the naked eye that only lets IR through (it’s used on my underwater camera strobes for my mirrorless cameras that do have minus-IR filters for triggering remote strobes), and my phone can see light coming through it that my eyes cannot.

            What has changed on phone cameras is the crystal lenses let less of the IR that triggered the green sensors, so it tends to have more of a magenta hue these days where it used to look white on older cameras.

            It’s also why some outdoor RAW shots on modern phones have a purple-ish tint - especiallyif there’sa lens flare from the sun. They’re picking up extra IR light on the red and blue sensors, but not the green.

  • Nate@piefed.alphapuggle.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Thought these were funny and went to buy a pair only to be met with this

    Checkout where $1.23 add-on is the default option. The company is free to take your $35 and run if you opt out of having your transaction information shared with advertisers

    “Free” returns & package protection (the bare minimum for an online purchase) is behind a $1.23 paywall, to which you then have to agree to ANOTHER companies Privacy Policy & T&C, which state they’ll sell your transaction info to advertisers. Kinda defeats the bit IMHO

  • ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Are they too similar to the meta Ray-Pervs? IF so does that just normalize wearing the meta abominations?

    I appreciate that this is a marketing effort for DDG, and the people wearing the meta Ray-Pervs deserve every bit of mockery they get.

  • huppakee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Now, Google alternative DuckDuckGo, a company that has long attempted to actively distance itself from Big Tech, has come up with a genius new product that’s guaranteed not to spark controversy: a pair of plastic, non-pervert glasses that lack any electronics whatsoever.

    The company partnered with sunglasses maker Knockaround to create the “world’s most innovative anti-surveillance sunglasses,” or “Normal F***ing Sunglasses.”

    Would I call them non-pervert glasses? Maybe. Would I call them anti-pervert glasses? No, that is a word i’d use for glasses that work like the Freedom Shield: https://github.com/nickbild/freedom_shield

    • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Im very new to circuitry, only getting into it about a month ago as I stumble through rgh3 on a 360, but I’m learning it as quickly as I learn anything with physical and tactile properties.

      Soft Circuits made from laminate on copper foil would be easy enough to make anchor points to solder the LED to that can be stitched to fabrics without damaging the circuitry. Using the smaller LEDs he mentioned, braided wires, and a jumper to connect a battery pack, you’d easily be able to wear this basically everywhere.

      Get a denim jacket, run the wiring along or even inside of the fold over seam that’s iconic in denim, I don’t know what the coverage of the lights are, but that could be figured out easily, then you just space the lights along each seam. Same for jeans and a hat. Alternative, a mechanics jump suit with hood and go full head to toe. You could even use jumpers by the neck and waist to attach hat and pants to the jacket circuit so you only have to have one battery pack.

      Using the DIY soft circuit, you could make every piece of this at home with a laminator, scissors, and sewing kit, but I’d hazard to say a cricket cutter would make it easier. Hit up your nearest craft fair and there’s bound to be a goblin that can do this in a week with a cool jacket from a thrift store.

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Technically the onion jumped on the bandwagen after the fact so it’s more like not not not the onion.

      • rainwall@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Looks like an AD on the onion based on the #sponsored tag.

        This reads more like just knowing your audience then an actual onion piece.

  • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    How decidedly retro of them! Next they’ll sell watches you actually have to wind up every day to keep time!

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Actually, there are completely mechanical self-winding watches. They’ll never need a battery as long as you wear them occasionally.

      • IMALlama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I went this route a year or so ago. Wait, that was three years ago now? I should have never checked.

        I’ve owned a few smart watches over the years and got tired of things failing. Bands splitting (remember the Microsoft band?), batteries degrading, cases splitting due to swollen batteries, etc.

        The only downside is that straight analog watches will drift some over long enough time periods, so you will occasionally need to adjust them by a minute or two.

      • Uranium 🟩@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        This is one of those things that has no impact on my normal day to day, but is still absolutely mind blowing any time it comes up

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I would just get one of those cheap digital watches. They don’t have any wireless capabilities and the battery lasts forever. (Mine has the original battery and it is around 15 years old)