1304: Glass Trolling

|< < Prev Comic #1304 (December 16, 2013) Next > >|

Glass Trolling

Title text: Plus, when someone finally grabs your glasses and stomps on them, it costs way less than $1,500 to replace them.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Is there really much to say? If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Cueball is wearing normal glasses, but he says "OK, glass" like someone wearing Google glasses would say to give a voice command. Saying "Ok, Glass" while wearing normal glasses is not going to do anything other than probably annoying bystanders, as the by-stander outside the frame says. Eventually you may become so annoying -- whether using Google Glasses or regular glasses -- that you may provoke somebody to take the drastic action of pulling off your glasses and stomping on them, as suggested by the title-text. While Google Glasses are relatively expensive, regular glasses cost only a fraction as much.

The Google search app on Android 4.1+ devices and the Google Chrome browser (with the Voice Search extension) both use a similar method of accepting user commands (but with the phrase "OK, Google"). This would probably also annoy by-standers, because talking aloud in public without a visible partner is usually considered rude.

Cueball is probably using the Google+ for Android application that let the user shake the mobile to add snow to the photos (this feature was added mid-december 2013)

This is another strip in the My Hobby series.

Transcript

My Hobby:

Cueball: Ok, Glass, check tomorrow's weather.

Cueball: Ohh, 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.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

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)