fjabre

They were Vive headsets. From the moment I put on the helmet something feels off and I can't quite focus on objects comfortably without some kind of strain. I've learned over time to let my eyes just relax and not try to focus but it still gets me after about 30-45 minutes. If I'm in Big screen watching a movie it's not a big deal because my eyes aren't moving around focusing on different objects in a room so much. But if I'm out walking around in Skyrim I feel sick after about 30 minutes.

Not a scientist. I'm a developer who has been working in the neuroscience field for 15 years, specifically with brain stimulation devices.

I'm not saying this qualifies as any sort of degree nor was I saying you should count my anecdotes as facts.

It is simply my belief that the vergence-accommodation conflict needs to be solved before VR will be adopted by the masses. I think vergence-accommodation neurological process should stay coupled as it does in nature to provide a completely natural feeling and non strained experience for the user. The research here is scant. Perhaps someone is aware of some ongoing research on this topic.

Perfectly valid point. I still think vergence/accommodation needs to be solved as an important key step in VR dev for more comfortable experiences. Its harder to do than just upping frame rates.

You need foveated rendering to start with but im sure you know the rest. If you want VR, well you need actual VR. Its not enough to trick your vision superficially. You have trick the whole system. I digress.

I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on.

No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

The jury is still out on that. There simply is no research to prove or disprove what you or I are saying.

My educated guess is that it actually is quite important and the key to making VR more comfortable for long term use.

I think it is the primary issue. I am a software developer who works in the neuroscience field. I am not an MD but I have read enough research to know you cannot definitively say what the cause is, and that disrupting such natural processes in the brain are likely to have consequences. To me it seems obvious that it's the primary source of the headaches and nausea commonly associated with VR.

For example I have certainly felt sick in the real world from roller coasters. But I have never felt the type of sick I get when I put on a VR helmet. It's another feeling all together. And it comes on differently than any other sick feeling I've had. This is anecdotal of course. I digress.

If VR doesn't solve this issue, VR doesn't go anywhere IMHO. But it's obvious they will solve it in time and as someone who closely follows the field it seems to be one of their primary concerns.

People get sick mostly because of the neurological issues associated with keeping eyes focused on objects at fixed lengths even though they are perceived as far away in the VR world.

Vergence-accommodation conflict:

https://medium.com/vrinflux-dot-com/vergence-accommodation-c...

Ive had several friends become paranoid while smoking pot. Some of them have been daily for years.

While they may have had some paranoia not a single one of them suffered from psychosis. On the contrary most seem quite happy, laid back and well adjusted. Most have the same issues we all have, weed or no weed.

Youre being alarmist.

No crisis in California, Washington or Colorado. We are all doing just fine.

Yes but paranoid doesnt mean psychosis. Inexperienced users will tend to get paranoid more so.

I believe people with psychosis are drawn to weed as they are to other substances.

This study adds nothing new. It just demonstrates that people predisposed to psychosis are more likely to smoke weed. Anyone here could've told you that without a study being done. There is no cause and effect demonstrated in the paper.

Notice they did not say smoking weed causes the psychosis even though they found a 'strong' link.

You do if you want your app not to be flagged as spam. Users are perceptive. They notice when windows brings up a big notice telling them the app is not to be trusted.

Perception is everything in those first few moments a user get his hands on your software. But now if I dont pay the entrance fee I potentially get abandoned by said user bc they have been scared off.

Its not an app store yet. Give it 5 or 10 years when we no longer have an open web and all we have are walled gardens.

We made it work and didnt have to ask IBMs permission to install software on its devices.

This is the problem as youve highlighted.

We must now contend with these power brokers and ask their permission for every install.

Pretty soon thats all that will exist.

Centralized their efforts at our expense. They work for their shareholders.

A novel idea. Apple and googles own apps have been tampered with. Indeed there are compromised apps available for download now on both stores.

Perhaps it's 'safer' but now we all ask permission and pay a huge tax to release software.

Is this a better system?

The web is alive but under attack. What freedoms will devs have left?

We will either pay comcast or we will pay google and apple. Either way the entrance fee for development just became a lot higher.

Every good dev knows to stay the hell away from sourceforge!

Of course but all of the above mentioned can still happen and does happen today with all security measures in place. With the added benefit that we must ask permission of a private entity to release an app and we must pay 30% of our profits to the gatekeepers /s

I think I like the old way better.

I remember the good old days when people were actually trusted to do their own research before downloading a potentially dangerous exe.

Now all we have are app store and certificate rackets. Im looking at Google and Apple too. Shame on the industry for accepting 30% revenue share on their services. The idea of an app store is great but not when it excludes other legitimate ways of installing software on device.

These practices are anticompetitive and monopolistic.

Good for Notepad++. I couldnt agree more with its sentiment.

So what? Is that fast by some global standard? I dont think the US is any gold standard for inet access.

They gave the internet away to evil corp. There has been no good news since then, except maybe for this recent push by Dems.

ISPs like verizon and att should be disbanded. Theyve proven to us once and for all they cant be trusted. We need national free highspeed inet.

Google is ridiculous with its API restrictions and lackluster offerings. For a software company it astounds me how poor and mismanaged their API options are. Unreliable in the sense they pull the plug a lot with these pet projects leaving devs hanging. Can they be trusted?

Also transcranial magnetic stimulation which is FDA approved for treatment of depression. No drugs involved.

Excellent. Thank you. Do you think there is any hope of finding intact DNA from something as old as Triassic period for example?

Can we build a park with it?

I think everyone is tired of being ripped off by out of date copyright laws and industry shenanigans. The music industry is full of blood thirsty lawyers, big ticket prices, unjust YT algorithms, and death by a thousand cuts with all the monthlies from music streaming services. I for one am fed up with this oligarchy and am happy to see services like this pop up from time to time to remind me that technology will continue to displace these brokers until it murders the middle man entirely. I look forward to that day.

Is there any upside to staying private if you're profitable?

You certainly will get more space for the money in LA at least.

While LA rents have increased dramatically the last several years it does not rival cost of living in NYC from my experience.

And isolated away from the LA sprawl Long Beach and Marina/Venice/SM are sizable cities unto themselves. It's a common misconception. Yes LA is not walkable but many cities inside of it are and are some of the most walkable places I've visited in the US.

And I would as some neighborhoods in LA are the size of smaller and midsize cities elsewhere. I grew up in Boston which is extremely walkable, yet LA has several walkable cities close to the size of Boston within its city limits.

Ive lived in NY and LA. I definitely had worse traffic problems in NYC than LA.

Ive never seen my GPS do the sort of gymnastics it did when driving to Long Island during rush hour.

Correction it has mountains close to 12000 feet near by and the Sierras about 3-4 hours north. Yes I know the Cascades are amazing Ive been, but I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of high elevation and forested mountains close to LA and California has the highest elevation mountains in the lower 48 if you include Sierras with much better weather to boot so they are more accessible.

You said you missed mountains around Seattle, so I had to point out that while not glaciated, the Gabriels and San Bernardino mountains are breathtaking in their own right. And the Sequoias by Yosemite just 4 hours north arent bad either where you have peaks over 14K feet. I live in the mountains, I moved to California for the mountains.