Snapchat launches Spectacles – its video and audio recording wearable for funsters
While the yet to be discussed personal security implications of Spectacles is yet to be acknowledged, let alone realised by the majority, they hint towards a very near future of integrated wearables.
Much in the same vein as mobile phones effortlessly transformed into smartphones and an extension of mankind, are Spectacles the next step in new media?
In other SnapChat news, SnapChat is no longer and Snap Inc. it is.
‘When we were just getting started it made sense to name our company Snapchat Inc., because Snapchat was our only product! Now that we are developing other products, like Spectacles, we need a name that goes beyond just one product – but doesn’t lose the familiarity and fun of our team and brand’ said Snapchat founder (and Miranda Kerr’s finance), Evan Spiegel.
‘Changing our name also has another benefit: when you search for our products it will be easier to find relevant product information rather than boring company information or financial analysis. You can search Snapchat or Spectacles for the fun stuff and leave Snap Inc. for the Wall Street crowd 🙂
Given the recent intro of Spectacles, it seems not only a timely re-brand, but a prelude to a product range of integrated wearables.
Snap Inc.’s approach, also highlights the importance of search in locating company products, no matter what the size, shape or form of your company.
This is one of the best interviews I’ve ever seen.
Great depth in storytelling, empathy with subject and not surprisingly, it got me thinking…
What does it cost to enable people who love each other to marry?
Rightly or Wrongly: Judgement is a human and societal default
Modern western society judges a woman’s worth by two things:
her ability to get married
her production of offspring.
I’d like to say this isn’t the case, but as a woman who lived her first 40 years as single and baron, this has been my experience.
However, from the moment I was carried across the proverbial threshold and married, people treated me differently.
It was somehow like I’d finally hit my straps and was now ‘a success’.
Even my family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances seemed to breathe a subconscious sigh of relief . A 20 year career was nice, but irrelevant. What about kids?
It is for this reason I don’t participate in public declarations of wedded and family bliss.
If I get anything that asks me to publicly promote the perfect happiness of married life (what I use to call smug married couples) or life as a perfectly happy parent, I ignore it.
When declarations of love are that important, I like to keep them private, because I know what a privilege they truly are.
As a sign of respect for my friends and the other members of our society who are denied the life changing, socially liberating institutions of marriage and parenthood, I refrain.
While Mother Nature plays her part in determining the path to parenthood, marriage is freely available for all … men who love women and vice versa.
So why do we as a progressive society flatly deny same sex couples, the same privilege?.
Gay, lesbian, bi, trans and queer (GLBTQ*) members of our society can have a commitment ceremony. Which as luck would have it, is also available for heterosexual couples as well and increasingly the preference for couples.
But why do we value men who sleep with women, over people who identify with other sexual orientations?
And what is the cost to society if we were to open the option of choice to GLBTQ members in our society?
This is probably where we learn from historical debates on the value of social inclusion:
What’s the cost of giving women the vote?
What’s the cost of including indigenous Australians on the census?
What’s the cost of giving indigenous Australians the vote?
She doesn’t say it, but Magda was psychologically victimised as a child by both legislators and society by not being exposed to ‘her normal’.
Keep in mind, being gay in Australia in the 70’s was considered a mental illness, conflated with paedophelia and downright illegal.
Ironically, the same public who proudly lauded her brilliance and celebrated her public successes include the legislators who continue to restrict her freedoms.
How many other children have been (and continue to be) victimised by our ‘societal norms’? What is normal anyway?
What is the real cost of enabling people who love each other to enjoy the priviledge of the institution of marriage?
Being respectful of others doesn’t cost us a thing. Judgement costs both sides.
Why are we legislating who someone can officially marry based on sex? Shall we try doing it on eye colour too? It’s just as ridiculous.
Same sex marriage doesn’t ruin the moral fibre of a society, it enables it.
Who are we not to support ALL our children by providing them with the range of norms to truly represent the diversity of persons and persuasions in our community?
The Anglican church doesn’t have a problem with same sex marriage.
The Catholic church I’m not sure about, but how can they? The whole premise of a priest’s commitment to God, sees him married to a man.
Governments should not legislate love. They should nurture generation now and next, by acknowledging diversity and not regurgitating the stereotypes of yesteryear.
Nothing founded in ignorance and constructed to promote an ideal rather than reality enables anything but judgement.
Thank you Magda for being so eloquent in both your observations and intent.
To any rationally thinking legislator, marriage equality is a no brainer.
To those who feel the need to debate the pros and cons, to research and formally report findings: your process driven approach while well intentioned, is still robbing fellow Australian’s of their civil rights.
Why are you better, more moral or normal than anyone else?
I look forward to the day that every Australian has the option to be married.
*I hope I have used the correct terminology. If I haven’t, please let me know via Twitter @TiffannyJunee or in the comments section below