1304: Glass Trolling

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Glass Trolling
Plus, when someone finally grabs your glasses and stomps on them, it costs way less than $1,500 to replace them.
Title text: Plus, when someone finally grabs your glasses and stomps on them, it costs way less than $1,500 to replace them.

[edit] Explanation

Google Glass is a set of glasses frames worn like typical glasses that features an optical display and internet connectivity. It responds to voice commands starting with "OK glass", for example to initiate video recording or to check tomorrow's weather. Strangers and other people surrounding the user would often find it annoying to hear someone talking to "himself", or to Glass.

Cueball is checking tomorrow's weather and says "OK, glass" while he is only wearing regular glasses. Apparently this is even more annoying to the bystander than if Cueball actually would wear a Glass.

In the title text, a bystander is eventually fed up with the annoyance and smashes the glasses to the ground. If they were an actual Google Glass, they would have cost a fortune to replace; regular glasses are much less costly.

The "OK, Glass" keyword is not useless outside of Glass; In the Android/iOS app Google Now, "OK, Glass" is also valid instead of "OK, Google" to initiate a voice command. While Cueball may be using this app, it is not necessarily the case, given that the caption states that Cueball enjoys prefacing everything with the phrase.

Google glass was also the main character in 1251: Anti-Glass

This is another strip in the My Hobby series.

[edit] Transcript

My Hobby:
Cueball: Ok, Glass, check tomorrow's weather.
Cueball: Ooh, snow!
Off-frame-bystander: Oh my god, it's somehow even more annoying than if you had it.
Saying "Ok, Glass" before everything while wearing regular glasses.
comment.png add a comment!

Discussion

In google now, you can use "OK glass" instead of "OK google".--Mralext20 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sentence "It's likely that Cueball uses this app because he holds a smartphone in his hand" independent on whether this app exists or not -- simply by the fact that the title is "Glass Trolling" -- there would not be much "Trolling" involved if the "Ok, Glass" actually made sense in the context -- so my take is that Randal is NOT aware of the App referenced, and that the "Ok, Glass" is in context where no meaning of "OK, Glass" makes any sense, such as when using an old fashioned "feature phone" or a iphone, windows phone or simply just an Android phone which no "Ok, Glass" capabilities -- I vote to strike this part of the explanation Spongebog (talk
i was merly starting a fact. I shall edit the explanation to match your text.--Mralext20 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are actually privacy activists who call for grabbing such gadgets and destroying them by stomping on them. Google for "#camover" in combination with "google glass" to find hints. --Kigana (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, aren't dioptric glasses correcting more complicated problems like astigmatism also costly? -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking in gross costs, yes. My new glasses cost well over $400 USD. Thankfully, due to decent vision insurance, I only paid $53 for exam ($10), frame/lenses ($20) and the upcharge (discounted) for polycarbonate lenses. Context: I have heavy astigmatism (especially my left eye) plus farsightedness. --BigMal // 108.162.216.57 13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Will people who need to wear glasses be able to wear Google Glass? Or would that be a problem? PheagleAdler (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
no,the glass unit of now has support for lenses. --Mralext20 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a major edit to the article, it is now much clearer and more informative IMHO. Feel free to tweak. --141.101.98.135 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC) (actually User:NeatNit, cba to log in)

Using : OK, glass! on a smartphone medically is a symptom of "ejaculatio praecox". 108.162.231.222 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I'm not native speaker, but it's "it's likely that ..., it's not entirely true" English? Wouldn't "it's likely that ..., it's not necessary true" be better? -- Hkmaly (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I fixed it.--Greenrd (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?