Set as Homepage - Add to Favorites

【A painting by Canaletto might well contain frank sensuality and eroticism in a parklike setting.】

Source：Prosperous Times Information Network Editor：Shopping Time：2025-06-27 07:49:42

Human beings are A painting by Canaletto might well contain frank sensuality and eroticism in a parklike setting.perplexing creatures. We're capable of developing vaccines to help fight deadly viruses in record time, sending billionaires into space, and creating all kinds of ever-improving smart technology, such as smart glasses. Yet when New Year's Eve rolls around we can't manage to get those plastic numerical party glasses right — and haven't done for more than 12 years.

In 2019 I looked back on a decade of New Year's Eve glasses and ranked them based on how dumb they looked. The glasses for 2010 — which featured two aesthetically pleasing zeros and easily turned the number one into a lens — looked the best. But in a surprise twist, the glasses for 2020 looked even worse.

You'd think creators would have taken advantage of 2020's two zeros, or simply copied the 2010 glasses and transformed the second 2 into a lens, but they had to make things complicated. Yes, some 2020 glasses were visually acceptable, but others were nonsensical eyesores like these:

You May Also Like
Four pairs of 2020 novelty glasses.The two zeros were RIGHT THERE. Credit: SCREENSHOT: P&F / AMAZON

Now novelty glasses creators spectacularly dropped the ball again with 2022's frames. Here are some of the frames in question, with an extra zero added as a lens (to ring in the year 20220!), 2s placed on foreheads, and/or eyeholes so tiny you can barely see out of them. It's pure chaos out here.

Just mandating the manufacture of a single design each year — the one that makes the most sense — could end the insanity. In 2021, we could and should have just stopped with these:

Mashable Trend Report Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

In humanity's defense, the glasses didn't always look pathetic. When celebratory eyewear was first conceived to ring in the year 1991, frankly, it slapped. Inventor pals Richard Sclafani and Peter Cicero made lenses in the holes of each 9 every year until 2000. When 2000 arrived, they sensibly used first and second zeros as lenses.

As Mel Magazine reported, 2000 was also the year that Sclafani and Cicero started getting serious competition. Rip-off designs started popping up around the world, and by 2009 the two friends decided to abandon their glasses-making endeavor. The competition was too heavy, but Sclafani also felt the designs would prove too challenging beyond 2010.

While the numerals themselves may not have made the art of designing glasses simple, some extremely straightforward years — such as 2020 — we just plain messed up. Had Sclafani and Cicero still been running the show, would our New Year's Eve eyewear have been so hideous these past few years? I'd like to think not.

That pair had the original vision, and it's clear that the novelty glasses posers of the world just can't seem to see it.

Yes, 2022 is supposed to be a year of no expectations. We're not expecting an end to the pandemic, or billionaires, any time soon. But this small thing we can at least control: Let's build back a better set of glasses to ring in 2023.

Previous：Greenpeace activists charged after unfurling 'Resist' banner at Trump Tower in Chicago

Next：Best laptop deal: Get the 14

Related Articles
Related Recommendations
Categories
Latest Articles
Popular Articles
Hot Recommendations
Featured Column

Quick Links

The “American Idol of Microfiction” Gets a New First Prize by The Paris ReviewLetter from India: The Haunting by Amie BarrodaleA TikTok AI chatbot called Tako might be on the way'You Hurt My Feelings' review: Julia Louis'Quordle' today: See each 'Quordle' answer and hints for May 28'Quordle' today: See each 'Quordle' answer and hints for May 27Netflix password sharing crackdown: How to get around itWhat We’re Loving: Cocktails, Borges, Color by The Paris ReviewHow to use Triller, the popular alternative to TikTok'Quordle' today: See each 'Quordle' answer and hints for May 26Bose brings back the Sleepbuds II to help you fall asleep for $250Letter from India: The Permit, Part 2 by Amie BarrodaleWhat do your masturbation fantasies mean?Map Quest by Alice Bolin'Quordle' today: See each 'Quordle' answer and hints for May 27'The Notorious R.B.G.' taught a new generation how to dissent with her internet stardomHow to use Triller, the popular alternative to TikTokDead Authors at Fashion Week: Part 1 by Katherine BernardWhat We’re Loving: Stridentists, Oblivion by The Paris ReviewGatsby, Sexting, and Rand by Sadie Stein Harvest Moon by Nina MacLaughlin How to watch Samsung Unpacked: Galaxy S24, Galaxy AI awaits Remembering Jan Morris The Fourth Rhyme: On Stephen Sondheim by Adrienne Raphel BAFTA 2024 nominees: Here's the complete list 2024 movie preview: From 'Mean Girls' to 'Joker: Folie à Deux' and more Eternal Present by The Paris Review Moral Suasion by The Paris Review 3 things Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra 'stole' from iPhone 15 Pro Max Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra hands Best Dyson deal: Save $320 on the Dyson Zone Active Noise Bezos as Novelist by Mark McGurl Redux: Chance Progression by The Paris Review A Philosophical Game: An Interview with Saul Steinberg by Lauren Kane A Holy Terror Dancing with Light: On Jim Harrison by Joy Williams Samsung Galaxy S24 announced: Price, release date, and more On the Alert for Omens: Rereading Charles Portis by Rosa Lyster Take Place by Terry Tempest Williams Samsung Galaxy S24 vs S22: The biggest upgrades Why Spotify's 'daylist' is all over Instagram stories

2.1316s , 10196.4609375 kb

Copyright © 2025 Powered by 【A painting by Canaletto might well contain frank sensuality and eroticism in a parklike setting.】,Prosperous Times Information Network  

Sitemap

Top

Quick Links