Hardware looks good except the FoV is really bad, a huge downgrade compared to the Quest 3.
19,127 karma · joined June 1, 2013
It shouldn't be a crime exactly to set up a tent in a park because you're homeless, but if you then refuse to get help from society to fix the underlying issue, that's not acceptable. Can't have it both ways.
Taking homeless people to jail because they're homeless just seems stupid and pointless, not to mention harmful to the person going to jail.
Shelters have the issue where people don't want them near where they live (for often justifiable reasons) but obviously they have to go somewhere.
One thing that I don't like about American culture is that people are a little too hesitant about adding 'retail' into publicly-owned spaces. There's a reflexive attitude of that being A Bad Thing, even though most Americans who visit, say, Japan, really appreciate the various shops and kiosks they have in transit stations over there.
I also really enjoyed in Germany when at the top of some hike there'd be an inn+restaurant, something Americans seem to treat as nearly anathema.
Relying on libraries to be de facto homeless shelters is bad for everyone compared to the alternative of dedicated facilities. It's worse for homeless people, worse for the library and staff, and worse for patrons.
That said, it's essentially impossible to get rid of cars entirely, and you can see that just by looking at countries or even regions that have good transit and notice that they still have tons of cars. Even Singapore has lots of cars, and the entire country is a super-dense city-state!
So it's definitely worthwhile to develop self-driving cars and trucks, even if you have fantastic transit and biking and walking available.
How is that 'skewed'? It sounds like you're just listing dangerous things, and yeah of course dangerous things are associated with fatalities, duh.
It's like saying that accidental gun deaths are 'skewed' because they're associated with keeping your gun loaded and not locking it up in a safe.
The biggest thing would be safer road/street design, but Americans are kind of allergic to that. Talk about traffic calming or road diets and a lot of folks get absolutely furious.
Is that a joke? It takes over 50 years to come up with a scientific name for a species?
a) even countries known for good transit like Japan still have a ton of cars for various things, and
b) there's no getting around that the money going into self-driving cars vs public transit isn't something that can really be swapped. It's coming from a different place for a different reason.
We absolutely could invest into more trains even with the SDC money flowing anyway, it's not like the SDC money is blocking it. We collectively choose not to do this, and it's not Waymo's fault.
Because one is used predominantly vertically, and the other horizontally.
As long as there's this landscape vs portrait difference, how does the aspect ratio similarity actually help?
Do movie companies or authors choose to make stuff because they'll be able to pick up more revenue 25 or 50 years from now? Seems unlikely. Both indiviudals and corporations are typically focused on the immediate future.
Why should authors be granted vastly larger IP protections than inventors?
No, it's really not. It should read "opted in to training on prompts by default".
"Opt in" means "you have to affirmatively turn this thing on". "Opted in" means "the thing is currently enabled".
Which is why it's probably better to write it as "enabled by default". Much harder to misinterpret.
One of the easy ways to evaluate this is: how has he taken being incredibly wrong about his extremely confident predictions over and over and over?
Typically with people like this, they completely shrug off being super wrong. It's barely even a blip on their radar, and even bringing it up is a good way to get them to immediately attack you to deflect attention from how bad their predictions or assertions were.
If you're constantly making predictions on Topic X, and said predictions are consistently, wildly wrong, and you never actually grapple with that or acknowledge how wrong you were in the past, then that's, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.
But by all means, someone link us to his blog posts where he goes over his wrong predictions without excuses or deflections. I'd be happy to change my mind.
What? That's not what you wrote. If it only takes 1/3rd to repeal a law, then you need to keep up 2/3rds support indefinitely, not 1/3rd.
And in this case, it would also mean that Britain would've joined the EU with a 55%+ majority as well.
Even a 55% requirement would be a lot better than a simple majority imo.
This is classic "works fine on my machine".