istorical

Hadn't heard of this product but it looks pretty cool, although at this point for me content is a bigger problem than hardware with VR. But congrats on what looks like a cool product.

One thing I'd like to hear is how this device feels to wear as the weight sounds quite intimidating. Quest 2 already gives many a sore neck at less than 200g but this seems to be 800g? My assumption was/is that as you start increasing your perf/hardware it starts to make more sense to go with the hockey-puck/backpack/pocket smartphone etc. tethered processing unit elsewhere on the body rather than strapping a toaster to the front of your face.

I think your characterization of your device as fitting a new category is entirely fair, but you don't do yourself favors by using glib language to describe competing products/categories:

"We decided early on that, given the cards we were dealt, it's better to build a premium headset with a high price than to build a shitty headset with a low price. This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is simply not good enough for someone wanting to work several hours per day in a VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even if most people don't realize this yet."

If you simply reworded this from "sub-par" to "other" or "existing" or "lower-end" you'd come across as less arrogant. I say this with upmost respect for what your team has been able to accomplish, but if the Quest 2 is "shitty" then your product is flaming garbage. But if you simply mean to say it's shitty in the particular dimensions / role you are designating the VRC (VR Computer) then you may reword it and be a bit more diplomatic.

I tried googling escort eVest and the first google search result was your comment :(

I haven't heard of this bag brand and I'm not a one-bag person, but just looking at their technology, the 1000 D. Cordura Nylon seems interesting, I wonder if anyone knows if it contains PFAS?

I wonder when fecal microbiome transplant will be the next 'just try psilocybin / ketamine' and if it will work well.

Find a happy friend and freeze some of their poop, put it in gelcap, swallow it. See if it fixes the eternal sad.

I believe the commenter is referring to the individual they shared drinks with, not the author of the piece.

Would love to hear a breakdown of what the term 'withdrawal' in "Data collected from 414 employees and 103 leaders showed that employees’ faking positive emotions in interactions with leaders was positively associated with employee withdrawal, but withdrawal was not significantly related to leader-rated task performance" means.

In flyover country you have insane racists screaming at you for being gay/black/whatever.

In NYC/SF you have insane homeless people screaming at you for ...whatever they are screaming at you for.

I think the important question is - what percentage of the population in any of these areas is really shitty to live around, and how often does a person have these types of experiences. In either case, it's hard to avoid some form of unpleasant shitty people.

All that being said, that really sucks and I hope the world changes for the better soon.

Let us know when the TOS allows us to create adult works, until then, will be working with GPT-Neo and Google Colab.

For those that want context on stroads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM&t=1s

Ironically, if it were the case that people didn't "feel [they] were able to be [themselves] at work", then you wouldn't know if some of those 20 people were faking their political views in order to fit in. Making an assertion that 'politically, we're all similar' sort of ignores the whole proposition that some may feel the need to hide their views in order to avoid political prejudice.

The dating economy is quite painful, and there likely is inequality of attraction, but the author does make an incorrect usage of their own evidence.

"If these findings are to be believed, the great majority of women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men while most men are willing to communicate romantically with most women. The degree of inequality in “likes” and “matches” credibly measures the degree of inequality in attractiveness, and necessarily implies at least that degree of inequality in romantic experiences. It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true."

The 'like' #s that the author quoted and Gini coefficient measured outgoing likes, not incoming likes / total matches. So for Hinge at least, the takeaway isn't that "women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men" but that they are willing to initiate a conversation with only a small number of men.

Likewise for the OKCupid blog post the author used as evidence, the blog post demonstrated that women viewed only a small fraction of men as highly attractive, but also showed that women still responded to and and went on dates with men they ranked as not as attractive. The latter the author of this piece ignored.

This kind of comparison makes no sense because whether quality of life is better in US or Europe depends on the US city/state vs European city/country you are comparing in each, as well as whether you're comparing someone of lower, lower middle, upper middle, or upper class.

US upper class in a wealthy area is very different from US lower middle class in another. And the same goes for Europe.

Do you realize that Facebook Connect is a yearly event that was scheduled long before any of the latest FB outrage news stories?

It seems to me as if you're simply missing the fundamental difference in that you don't understand (likely because you haven't experienced it firsthand with a friend or loved one) the value of physical/social presence enabled by VR. There are two things so far VR does that 2d doesn't, 1) you feel like you are really in the room with someone even if you are not, 2) boobs look 3D in VR porn.

I had doctors give teenage me antibiotics for acne. Later on prednisone I believe. Jesus christ dermatologists are fucking awful. Never told me I needed to start washing my towels, bedsheets, pillowcases more often or suggested using a moisturizer.

I have no doubt these crimes do get written about, but they're third-rate beats, rarely front-page material. They don't lead to mass condemnation, they don't lead to boycotts, they don't result in congressional hearings.

We live in a world where all of our major journalists release fun, high-five-everybody-look-at-how-shit-this-thing-is mockery pieces for every new mistake by a tech company but where are the front page Vice pieces, Washington Post articles, or NYT exposés when Johnson and Johnson sells 33,000 bottles of baby power with asbestos in them? Why wasn't Johnson and Johnson's CEO dragged in front of congress, why don't we hear constant calls to break up Johnson and Johnson? This is just one example, but it's hilarious to see the outrage, the snide articles and nose-turned-up comments, while we conveniently ignore the worst industries that are destroying our planet, the slave labor that goes into all of our physical products, the poison that often finds its way into them, or the destruction they are wreaking on nature.

As a site dominated by tech industry employees, it's time that people working in tech stop simply nodding their heads when people shift the cultural spotlight on corporate malfeasance onto tech's bully target of the year/decade, over and over and over again. We get it, social media is fucked up. Great. Now, where are the Frances Haugen's of BigChemical or BigCPG? Why aren't they household names? Why aren't we collectively outraged they aren't at congressional hearings?

This piece by Vice absolutely embodies the snide tone, the absolute derision with which we decided it's OK to paint Facebook. That's well and good, Facebook isn't great, but doing so while turning a blind eye to far greater crimes is a crime that itself ought to be castigated. A journalists mission is in part to embody the Fourth Estate - to be a watchdog. When all journalism does is stand around the classroom and pat each other on the back and point at the dunce-hat wearing stooge of the decade making obvious mistakes in an echo chamber while ignoring the subtle crimes of the popular kid, it's worthy of the same snide comments itself.

The alternative to 'capitalism as we see it today' is not socialism. It's capitalism without regulatory capture and functional regulatory bodies that have teeth and use them.

Yeah I'm a dev but was a team of one embedded within a sales and marketing org at a a medium-large size startup with a mandate to automate and find growth hacks for sales + marketing, and I was able to use Zapier with its Salesforce integration, google sheets integration, Twilio integration, Marketo integration to do a lot of work that I wouldn't have had time to build, support, and do maintenance on if I'd built a full backend application.

All of what I did with Zapier could have been implemented with a database, a bunch of scripting, and cronjobs, but using Zapier saved oodles of time and meant I was outsourcing the maintenance to their API integrators rather than to myself.

I was able to do so much with triggers and webhooks I can only imagine what is possible now with their more recent code blocks feature and adding better environment variables.

that's fair, and it does remain to be seen if the 'truly good VR/AR' is a few years away or several decades. I'm not optimistic about solving for virtual 'touch'/kinesthetic sense.

My point was that your comment "VR makes most people nauseous" is criticizing the metaphorical vacuum tubes of VR/AR - IE: current VR/AR implementation != all possible VR/AR implementation. So you're criticizing the growing pains period but the medium itself doesn't necessitate nausea. And in fact there has already been tremendous advances in both hardware and software to mitigate nausea.

They really can't. Civil liberties and privacy were popular after the Patriot Act, and then they weren't.

Occupy Wallstreet and the 2008 bailout led to widespread dissatisfaction with the finance industry, and then it didn't anymore.

Derek Chauvin led to huge attention for Black Lives Matter and anti-racism, but if history tells us what to expect, it's that in 5-10 years some new activist / popular criticism will gain traction and people will sort of just stop caring. Those who were already fighting racism, trying to abolish or reform the police, or reform the criminal justice system will still be there, but frontpage headlines won't, mass protests won't, the zeitgeist will move on.

How can we honestly say that they can all be held accountable when we're unable to hold anyone accountable or make meaningful change on a single issue, let alone the dozens or hundreds that need immediate attention?

I utterly agree that all of these issues do _need_ to be given attention, and deserve to all be held closely to our hearts, but it just seems that the last 50-100 years of western democracy proves that that doesn't really work with the current playbook.

What can be done about the fact that industrial and financial services corporations can commit the most heinous crimes with impunity with zero public backlash or penalty, but tech companies do something somewhat questionable and the Senate starts public hearings, the media writes exposé after exposé, and the public regards Zuckerberg and Bezos as the ultimate evils of our time?

If I were Zuckerberg, I'd find a way to fund public media and public opinion smear campaigns against industry, CPG, and finance. Because they're raping our planet for generations to come with no penalties or slaps on the wrist, meanwhile he gets dragged in front of the gerontocracy once a year to explain how online communication works.

This is a bit like saying 'vacuum tubes are too fragile and always break, computers will never succeed'.

That being said, I do think FB will succeed on the hardware front but flounder on the software front unless they somehow completely reinvent themselves and stop being so "Disney".

that's sorta like saying 'I can't see how computers will be bigger than pen and paper. In public I won't be using a mainframe computer, but I will pull my journal out of my pocket to take a note'.

the implicit premise is that the category (AR/VR/XR) remains the same but the technology improves until its better for pretty much all usecases we currently use 2d screens.

It would be really cool if you could share some of what you guys envisioned for the metaverse at that time and how developments in AR and VR since have lined up with what you foresaw vs diverged, etc.

discovering these event discovery websites themselves is one of the challenges.

nyc has theskint, differnet neighborhood specific events listings (bushwickdaily, brokelyn come to mind for me), industry/event category specific listings (like different calendars for music / concerts, calendars for comedy, etc).

one problem is that these event discovery streams are scattered across mediums. for example you might find some nyc events scattered across some promoter's IG account, some that are advertised on TikTok, some on some old fashioned blog style website like those I initially listed above.

aggregators exist as well but they tend to be un-sexy and not likely to find long-tail / niche stuff / cooler more underground stuff.

the solution is often to ask people around you or involved in the space you're interested in how they find out about events. they will then tell you about the mailing list, or the IG account, or the website, or whatever.

of course, smaller cities and towns often don't have as large of 'scenes'. and anywhere you go, it's often more fruitful to just create the scene you want to be a part of.

I would suggest examining this question of 'what level of state intervention to create public safety and public order is just' without framing one's own perspective or the cultural norm of one's own place and time as the obvious 'correct' answer.

One from the future or some utopian free-love society could argue that 21st century western neoliberal capitalist states with police and criminal justice systems as they are and economic systems as they are are themselves permanent enslavement of millions of people.

And if you'd argue 'well, I believe in abolishing the police, ending the drug war, and UBI for all' I'm sure they could still find parts of your worldview that would be pretty much just enslavement. Maybe the idea of pet ownership, of forced education of what we currently call 'children', maybe some taboo around sex or love.

In which case, that future person could say that they're genuinely shocked that anyone on Hacker News could consider _you_ a decent human being.

My point is simply, there's no simple 'obvious' answer when it comes an ethical / moral / economic question as large as this. It's a question of trade-offs and optimizing for different goals / values / metrics.

Spend time on the teachers subreddit. It's not so much money that's the primary problem. It's poor parenting, inability of teachers or administrators to actually implement any sort of punishment or discipline that a student would care about, and cultural decline.