2pEXgD0fZ5cF

I had access to Oculus dev kits back in the day and am now a Valve Index owner, which means that

1. I've been closely following VR for almost 10 years now

2. I've invested some money for the best VR hardware available (at the time).

My take on Facebook and why I am fully on board with the skepticism here:

- VR hardware, at least on the higher end, is pretty good. It has been "there" for many possible applications at least in terms of fidelity since ~2019. VR being so uninteresting is mostly a software problem in my opinion, not a hardware problem, even if the hardware development is important to make adoption more realistic without the need to invest a ton of money.

- The novelty of VR wears off rather quickly. I barely use my VR hardware nowadays, and right now I can't imagine a scenario in which VR makes anything in my everyday life easier and more efficient, quite the opposite. While I don't doubt that it will happen, I very much doubt that Facebook will be involved in the next important step forward. They are just too out of touch with reality (outside of the investor/silicon valley/zuckerberg bubble) for that.

- The software is just lacking, and everything Facebook is presenting when it comes to software is in many ways a step back compared to VR products from as early as 2014 (e.g. VR Chat)...Acting as if Facebook is pushing anything forward here is just naive following of buzzwords at best, dishonest parroting of marketing talk at worst.

- Anything a company like Facebook might plan with VR is just uninteresting, because it will ultimately have dark patterns, manipulation and monetization baked into its very core, be it directly or indirectly.

Rather than developing VR as a "next step" in personal computing, Facebook is just racing to build an ad infested dystopian walled garden as fast as they can, why would I get excited about that in the slightest?

I'm still generally very interested in VR, but the only thing I'll get excited about is VR device from a manufacturer that doesn't have backstabbing me as his ultimate goal and will base all his decisions on being Facebook.

And yes, I still remember "Oculus won't require a Facebook Sign-In", and while that has been reverted for now, I won't believe for a second that the people working at Facebook aren't eager to get something equivalent back as soon as enough users are on board.

> clearly sarcastic domains such as "hitler.rocks" and "nuke.africa"

When I visit the page I'm greeted by a banner with fake quotes, here is a selection:

> I'm 200% n*ger

> Come fuck with a n*ger. I'm a business man

There is nothing that indicates sarcasm or satire there when it comes to all those choices, given that the site advertises itself towards 4chan users. At best it's edgy and infantile, at worst it's just the usual racist shit that is "funny" only to the people repeating it very loudly over and over and over.

Weird how the only flavour of "sarcasm" and "humor" people like you and the site owner can come up with is the glorification of nazis and making fun of black people.

I wonder who it is you are trying to fool here...

Correct, as long as the illusion stays up.

With all the fascicles and updates to released volumes I'm a bit confused as to where one would start today with TAOCP.

If I wanted to give it an honest try, what do I buy?

Volume 1, 3rd edition + Volume 1, Fascicle 1?

If I get this right, fascicle 1 of Vol. 1 is used to replace/update the old MIX architecture used in TAoCP with the new MMIX. If so, what about volumes 2-4?

> tech people and journalists

Also politicians.

That is the whole problem though, isn't it? A few hundred random people on Twitter are often more than enough to manufacture a wave of articles across multiple news websites and newspapers.

Twitter isn't important, the problem is that influential entities think that Twitter is important (and representative).

Thanks for replying, this certainly lends me some context I was missing before.

Last time I checked, the comments aren't getting removed, are they? So I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, could you elaborate?

It is pretty obvious that she is regarded positively by the majority here. Are you under the impression that I think otherwise?

It seems like you misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I wrote.

While we have these kinds of submissions pretty regularly on HN, this is the first time in multiple years I've seen a reminder about this under almost every single negative comment and every comment containing critique. The reminder about the rule was even expanded to the whole concept of royalty.

My point is not that speaking ill of the dead should be encouraged, my point is the selective enforcement of that sentiment with only a special, priviliged group benefitting from it.

Edit after consideration: Whether criticizing the dead or not criticizing the dead should follow a general rule, I can't and won't comment on.

I gotta admit that it is a bit weird to see british royalty being so heavily privileged that they even get special moderation treatment here on HN to protect them (?) from any negativity, or rather stop negativity about them.

I'm not keen on the idea of using this submission to flame the Queen, I obviously agree with the general rule of avoiding flamebait, what I mean is that other HN submissions on the deaths of people certainly didn't get this special treatment. It is also not at all enforced in both directions when looking at the obviously and comically over the top positive comments of low quality which contain no real substance.

Edit: I used the wording "stop negativity" which might be misleading, since (as far as I am aware) no comments are being deleted. What I'm talking about is moderation giving out a lot of warnings and keeping a closer watch on "flamebait" violations than I've ever seen before on any submission.

Well, guess it's time to cancel my subscription and start preparing my departure from Bitwarden...sad to hear this.

> This is great!

Why? What is a promise like that supposed to be worth? Even if the people making it are completely honest when saying this (which I now doubt), once leadership changes this will go out the window quick.

This is in line with "Keeping our users happy is our main priority" and other quotes from the infinite pool of empty PR speak.

While I like (and recently started using) Sourcehut [1], I also hear and read good things about codeberg [2] these days. Haven't used it yet though.

[1] https://sourcehut.org/

[2] https://codeberg.org/

> esports ultimately resulted in barbaric desecration of formerly-enjoyable multiplayer experiences

This I agree with

> Starcraft 2 and LoL evolved into some of the top offenders in this

This I couldn't disagree more. Especially Starcraft 2 is the worst example you could have picked. The game has such a high skill ceiling that you can get away many playstyles until you hit the uppermost ranks. As a master player myself (the rank, I'm far from being a "master" at Starcraft 2) I can comfortably hold myself in Diamond league without microing or even looking at my units or even with only building/using a single unit type and crazy compositions. I got pretty low apm, and my playing looks nothing like that of a pro player (which does resemble your description of one handed organ/piano playing [1]).

"Meta" in a game like that only applies to people in upper Grandmaster and Pro territory, and in a Game like Starcraft 2, a low Grandmaster player and a pro player are very far apart from each other. It's not something the devs force upon you, it's what you have to familiarize yourself with to reach a certain level of gameplay. Now where that level lies is something the devs can influence.

What I just described applies to many 1v1 competitive games, take a look at fighting games too.

You basically imply that Starcraft 2 went wrong somewhere to please e-sports, but are you familiar with high level Starcraft 1? It's way more ridiculous in every aspect of the game and on top of the high skill ceiling you have to familiarize yourself with many quirks of the game to become a decent player, which makes it harder and less accessible in general, but the skill ceiling was just as high or even higher than that of Starcraft 2.

> League of Legends

This is a more appropriate example, because here you are getting forced into certain meta compositions and picks very early on. However this is as much a community problem as it is a dev problem. At no point is there any need for mid level LoL players to follow "the meta", but the community is very obsessed with following what "the pros" do, whether or not that makes sense.

> I can play [insert role] all day on 1 server with other humans and no one will give me shit about it.

Honestly I believe one of the main problems you are describing is matchmaking rather than game balancing. With modern style MMR/Elo ratings in team based multiplayer games, playing online is in general way less relaxed than the "good old" joining a server and chilling there with players of vastly different skill levels, which is part of what enables many unconventional playstyles.

The development of meta in general is inevitable if you match players based on their skill and give them access to forums and the ability to share knowledge. However as I said initially, I generally agree that quite a few multiplayer games were ruined by devs chasing "e-sport" status.

And I absolutely agree that multiplayer games that allow for many different playstyles are more fun, but they are also way harder to create and balance, and the community will find optimal strategies and overpowered characters even if you as the dev do not.

[1]: https://youtu.be/SAo3QwnPruc?t=281

I would've bought a PS5, but it's just not available. I won't go out of my way monitoring shops and/or pay premium plus for a console that is soon 2 years old at this point.

PS5 might as well not exist for many regular people.

> doesn't really happen

Does that mean 0 cases (timeframe?) and official confirmation from the discord team that ripcord is allowed?

If not it can and will happen (as before). Why would it be inherently different with ripcord?

Is it possible to attach files to an entry?

Is this satire? I honestly can't tell anymore with projects surrounding cryptocurrencies.

What a surprise

It doesn't get any more "establishment" than (one of) the richest men on earth...

I'm going to slightly modify and repeat comment of mine I wrote here on another post for the same topic:

According to the DKSB (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund) [1], encryption barely plays a role when it comes to the distribution of CSAM [2]. In short: DKSB is not in favour of this. You know, the people that probably know what they are talking about when it comes to the protection of children, unlike the politicians who are trying to force this through.

The politicians which only really talked to salesmen of surveillance software [3] about this and never really consulted any independent people with expertise in tech, privacy or the protection of children [4].

Because this was never, at any moment, about protecting children.

[1]: https://www.dksb.de/en/home/

[2]: https://www.eu-info.de/dpa-europaticker/316232.html

[3]: https://netzpolitik.org/2022/dude-wheres-my-privacy-how-a-ho...

[4]: https://edri.org/our-work/private-and-secure-communications-...

I am part of a few programming/language communities that are both on discord and IRC. I noticed that discord lends itself to...low quality discourse, so to speak.

It might sound a bit cliché but despite a big overlap of members which hang out and participate in both at the same time IRC has way less noise and better discussions and answers. I also feel like the language creators, while hanging out in both, do the "important" communication on IRC.

On discord there is more emote, picture and link spam and more "joking around with memes", and that is despite the fact that the discord servers already have dedicated channels for certain topics.

Now this is a very subjective observation on my part, but I believe that there will always be a place for plaintext communication, since it automatically filters a lot of noise and demands a lot less mental overhead to keep running in the background.

Please note that I am not really nostalgic for IRC, since I am a pretty recent user. I'm at an age where I barely missed the "golden IRC years" and when I got into programming it was already declared dead by many, whatever that even means given that some people have been claiming the death of IRC for a long time now.

The "big ones" like Unity, Cryengine, Unreal etc. include many many things. They are absolutely huge compared to what a single game using them actually needs. A game engine is just that: an engine for games to run on to seperate engine and gameplay programming.

If your team decides to create singleplayer game(s), and your own engine as a platform for it, then building full networking and netcode into that would be out of scope. That would still be a game engine nonetheless.

Can the term game engine include networking? Absolutely. Does game engine inherently imply networking? No, I don't think so.

Yes that I am aware of, my fear is Oracle going on a legal rampage, not direct mismanagement.

> What's the extra benefit that zfs currently doesn't provide?

Not being at the mercy of a company like Oracle is a huge plus in many ways. A huge plus for future development and risk-free adoption.

I use ZFS on a server of mine, but I am one of those paranoid people that would switch just to get away from a project that could be hamstringed at any moment if Oracle has one of its episodes again.

ZFS (hopefully) never finding its way into the mainline kernel is kind of a meta-disadvantage.

I didn't claim that paper votes are immune against it. But having voting that is a complete black box for everyone will amplify it.

> No single individual is able to count all paper votes either

Compare "I can't count them all myself but I can see and understand the way it works" with "I can't count them myself and I can't even understand how the system and validation work".

Imagine if trump could've slapped some claims about faulty tech, broken tech security, untrustworthy developers etc. on top of the rest.

I'm not doubting your ability to do that and I'm not saying that negative feelings come inherently with these kind of news. But surely you can see that these reactions can be pretty common for many people especially if they aren't happy with their own situations, and that those people can still feel happy when good things happen to others.

What I'm claiming is that a negative reaction (in terms of comparison) in this way and feeling happy for others are independent of each other.

> If other people find their ideal job, have a tropical vacation, etc. it makes me feel... good?

This sounds like a misunderstanding. Being happy for friends (real friends not "500 Facebook friends" friends) is not mutually exclusive with these news invoking bad feelings inside you (shame, feeling of inadequacy etc.)

Also even if you ignore the technical problems with electronic voting (which are numerous): electronic voting systems are incredibly vulnerable to disinformation campaigns. With paper voting (at least in germany), anyone can attend and help the count. The system is transparent, open and very easy to understand. That doesn't make it immune to manipulation, but it is the closest we got so far.

With electronic voting, only one category of people even has the ability to understand the system, so "the average citizen" can only ever rely on "experts". And let's be honest, even for individual programmers and computer scientists it would take a large amount of effort to investigate. Get some news going that the system is flawed and you can't tell anyone to just go and check and verify for themselves, and we all know it's not hard to find "experts" that will gladly support that claim, even if it isn't true.

Except that the people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to child protection disagree with you and the politicians trying to force this through.

According to the DKSB (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund) [2], encryption barely plays a role when it comes to the distribution of CSAM [1]. DKSB is not in favour of this.

You can pretend as much as you want that this is about children, that doesn't make it true. This was never, at any moment, about protecting children. Authorities already lack the resources to even go after the cases they know about, adding a huge pile of crap data to work through is probably going to make this situation even worse.

[1]: https://www.eu-info.de/dpa-europaticker/316232.html

[2]: https://www.dksb.de/en/home/

> Just let nerds do their thing online.

I mean, absolutely. But let's not pretend that the whole blockchain bubble is a "nerd" (in the tech sense) thing. It hasn't been since like 2014. It also isn't an "interest of some", the cryptocurrency people very much want to force this dystopia and snakeoil technology onto everyone. All so a few people can make a lot of money.