this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
595 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

60319 readers
3170 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teft@lemmy.world 89 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's the same problem google glass had. It can be the most information rich and user friendly device in the world but if you look like a dingus wearing it, it will never catch on.

[–] trebuchet@lemmy.ml 63 points 11 months ago (4 children)

That's what I thought about the elephant tusk looking AirPods yet here we are.

The Reality Distortion Field sometimes makes things hard to predict when it comes to Apple products.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

People on here are wired.

Air pods just look like regular apple headphones just without wires.

They sure as shit look less goofy than my huge pixel buds that stuck an inch out of my ear.

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You’re probably thinking of the current gen AirPods rather than the original (comparison).

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Lol. So Gen 2 they were finally like "let's shape this thing more like someone's ear". Then Gen 3 "Fuck it, ears are apparently different shapes let's just go with the tried and true method that's been around on $5 earphones for a decade"

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Only “pros” have human ears. Everyone else must be mutants.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I'm kind of surprised people felt that way about AirPods. I don't remember that at the time. They seem quite mild to me at this point - people didn't mind wearing regular earbuds around, why worry if there's a cord or not?

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

I thought they looked like uncooked long macaroni.

[–] Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

They look like puss leaking out of the ear to me.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What if I already look like a dingus?

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then if you wear it you'll be an even bigger dingus and make other dinguses look less dingusy. It would kinda be a public service of sorts I guess.

[–] whodatdair@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

The lesser known brother of the Overton window - the Dingerton window.

[–] double_oh_walter@feddit.nu 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Two dingi don’t make a right. Or something.

[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Dingi.

Pronounced ding eye? Dingii? Ding gee eye?

My brain hurts now.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But thats just a single dinghy.

If you pluralize that its either dinghies or dingii?

Meh, my autistic brain gets stuck on weird stupid shit like this.

Its like... If you have a donut, then a second donut, you have two donuts.

You can say two donut to be cutesy i guess?

Very hard for me to tell when being cutesy is appropriate.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

If the root singular word is dingus, this makes sense.

If the root singular word is dinghy, as I guess I have always said, then it does not.

Well at least I partially understand my own confusion now, thanks!

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Don't they cancel each other out?

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately they multiply instead of cancel

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] tofubl@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

i times i is -1, though. Imagine that!

[–] darkecho@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

That's too complex for me.

[–] double_oh_walter@feddit.nu 3 points 11 months ago

Hmm. They might. Hadn’t thought of that.

This requires more research. You must buy one - for science! And, I guess, for “science “.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

No, if you touch two dingii together you still have two dingii.

Two sexy, sexy dingii