this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
377 points (98.0% liked)

Not The Onion

22159 readers
531 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nathan@piefed.alphapuggle.dev 66 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is because credit cards are extremely insecure (by design) and anyone with half a brain outsources that risk to another company

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

PCI compliance is a pain in the ass

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 10 points 1 day ago

And also doesn't even do much to fix the risk lol

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 90 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was hoping they used an IR emitter to blow out any cameras pointed at you.

[–] RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 23 hours ago

I'm surprised your comment isn't echoed further.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 22 points 2 days ago

DDG reinvented the sunglasses. Genius.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 29 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] Uranium_Green@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day 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.

I just got one as a birthday gift. Works great!

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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)

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

I was joking & playing up the retro aspect. Were I serious, that's what I'd do as well.

[–] Ariselas@piefed.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd settle for a phone that's just a phone

[–] abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] comador@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Oh come on, at least post a picture of a good one. 1989 Swatch Phone:

[–] howler@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

Damn, I missed all the good things, huh?

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 day ago

Those are expensive now.

[–] Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Had one like that, but I think it was solid blue

[–] xx3rawr@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Technically not not The Onion?

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 7 points 2 days 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.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Haven't sunglasses ALWAYS been used by pervs to obscure their eyeline?

[–] Batmancer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

I use them to hide how scared I am.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Meta's "Controversial" Smart Glasses...

What a euphemisim.