The only ones I know who aren't skeptical are utterly delusional. Not about VR/XR specifically, but they're all deluded about something.
2,402 karma · joined August 21, 2025
The only ones I know who aren't skeptical are utterly delusional. Not about VR/XR specifically, but they're all deluded about something.
Any argument made without acknowledging this is purely in bad faith. The problem is not regulation that benefits OEMs. The problem is that you can simply purchase regulations that benefit you.
I think 8 billion people can manage doing two things at once.
Because as we all know, if something "bad" is possible, but no one has published a GitHub about it, no one will ever be able to do the bad thing! Society is saved at last!
Used to be, anyway. Modern alternatives are much better. It's still used as glue in wind instruments though.
On the other, the right answer is 16 or 32. It's not the correct answer, strictly speaking, but it is the right one.
Kyle has spent a lot of time and resources trying to talk to OFCOM. They won't give answers, so the only reasonable option is to block the UK.
Which is the entire point of your laws. Blame yourself.
Blame the UK for this bullshit. The rules say you must geoblock the UK or be fined, and then sometimes you still get fined anyway.
When I hear curse words, they elicit exactly the same emotional response as any other word. There's nothing magical or inherently special about them, it's all in your own psychology.
Humans curse sometimes. That's what happens to real people in the real world. Astronauts are not some kind of pure, unspoiled demigods. They're regular-ass humans who say things like shit and fuck. Just like approximately everyone else does.
I'd rather the best and brightest among us admit that they're real people just like everyone else than put on a show to protect the delicate sensibilities of a very small number of people who clutch pearls and scream when someone nearby says a "bad word".
Astronauts are people. They have genitals, they walk around nude sometimes. They shit, piss, and fuck just like you and me. You want to deify and make them into false idols for some reason. That is a fundamentally bad and wrong thing to do, and you can directly quote many/most religions on that one.
That is malicious and inexcusable. It's not on GP, the fault lies with the idiot that ran gold documentation through the bullshit machine. Don't blame someone who was wronged, that makes you a malicious asshole.
Would you go to a driver's funeral and tell their family that um, ackshully it's sparkling autopilot?
What do you think you're adding to the conversation? You're trying to distract from the fact that real, actual people have been actually killed by this.
There is simply no reason to try doing this in your head. You're worse at it than the debugger is. And I say this as someone who does have the skill. It's just not necessary.
It's just that in most cases, the amount of effort required is orders of magnitude higher than is really justifiable.
Unfortunately, the internet is used for a lot more than using one of the six gigantic centralized websites.
We need laws and a competent government to force these companies to care by levying significant fines or jail time for executives depending on severity. Not fines like 0.00002 cents per exposed customers, existential fines like 1% of annual revinue for each exposed customer. If you fuck up bad enough, your company burns to the ground and your CEO goes to jail type consequences.
The scale is completely different. Economics do not simply scale up and down, the math changes drastically when the numbers get bigger.
My experience tells me that one can spend years at an instrument and still lack the fundamental capacity to be an artist.
I've spent years playing different instruments. I'm pretty good at it, I can get proficient at new instruments pretty quickly. However, my ability tops out at reproducing music. There's a fundamental creative spark, some subtly different neurology, that allows some people to create art, to express the intangible through music. I don't have that. I simply can't connect with music or art the way an artist does. I see the mechanics underneath and that's as far as my brain goes.
It's incredibly silly to assert anyone can study into a master musician. There is such a thing as innate talent that simply can't be acquired, and that talent is the thing that makes an artist.
Conversely, as an engineer, I do have that talent. It's been obvious my entire life, the same way an artist's talent becomes obvious early on. The way I approach problems is fundamentally different from the way someone who simply studied thinks about things. It's a fundamentally different way of thinking and experiencing the world.
Look around you at the varied shapes and sizes and varieties of humans. Some humans are natually huge and powerful, some are small and nimble. A 4'8 ballet dancer can't "just" learn to be a 6'4 bodybuilder, physiology just doesn't work like that. Small humans can't get big, and big humans can't get small. Big humans are stronger than small ones, and small humans can never get as strong as big ones.
Why is it unthinkable for humans to be different on the inside? If our outward physiology is so wildly varied, why is it impossible for internal physiology and neurology to be exactly as varied between individuals?
Innate talent exists. Everyone has different mixes of talent, and not all of them can be learned. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. It's part of the beauty of the human species. And realistically our species wouldn't have evolved to this point without a wide mix of specialized individuals.
Claiming that everyone can be Mozart if they just work harder really cheapens the whole thing. That implies talent is interchangeable with effort, and it definitely is not. If you can work past that childish crutch, you can see the awe in a human who was born to do something at the very highest level.
And OCR is generally just not accurate enough and still makes very visible mistakes throughout the text.
Have you read many OCR'd ebooks? I have, and every single one was massively inferior. Most I would consider barely readable.
I suspect they have either a massive database of proven-winnable shuffles, or before the game presents a new deck to you, it solves it in the background to prove it's winnable.
Personally I dislike this feature. Yeah it sucks to get an unwinnable shuffle, but that's just how card games work. Ensuring every game is winnable just seems like addiction engineering when it's next to the Microsoft logo.
Part of the fun is the uncertainty that a game is possible to win. If you know up front that a deck is guaranteed solvable, it really colors how you play the game.