Now you're arguing the value of social media, not the value of social media on your face. That's like arguing for HUDs because dashboards are useful on cars.

I just don't think it is fair for you to generally refute something as useless for everyone because you don't see its utility.

And I think it's sloppy and offensive for you to accuse me of calling something "useless" when three days ago I said this:

There are legit reasons for a heads-up display. There are even reasons for a wearable heads-up display. I don't think those reasons are as ubiquitous as Google does, though, and I think the ability to dial your phone without taking it out of your pocket is highly overrated.

I've defined "utility" for you about four times now, and you're waxing poetic about the singularity. I'm totally down with having a discussion... but if we're going to have this discussion, I need you to stick to the subject at hand. Or if you're not going to stick to the subject at hand, acknowledge that you're changing the subject and that arguments for or against sentient computing are not necessarily applicable to the subject of "Meta Spaceglasses - better than Google Glass?".

Do you know your blood sugar level right now? How 'bout your blood pressure? When was the last time you checked either? How often do you check them? So why would you need that in your peripheral vision? That's what I'm talking about - you say "data is useful therefore you're wrong" when my whole point is that there isn't a lot of data you need all the time.

Can you at least see the difference?