Tyranny generally results in stagnation. It’s a bottleneck. All the power and decisions reduced to a single individual or group of individuals leaves no room for experimentation and growth. Progress becomes single threaded instead of parallel.
Not really. As sentimental and time limited beings we don’t want to see things go extinct since we won’t be able to experience them again or be around to see what comes next. But in the larger picture we’re actually quite tame when it comes to extinction events. At least we are making an effort to limit the damage we’re doing. Space rocks and chemistry can’t do that. In the long run other species will evolve and maybe with luck we’ll have a hand in steering that evolution.
That’s odd because I have the opposite feeling. I almost never play regular computer games anymore because I see it as a time sink. I also avoid watching things by myself for the same reason. Playing a VR game or spending time with others in VR feels much more rewarding because I’m using my body instead of sitting in a chair and I feel more engaged with the people I talk to when they are embodied in an avatar and we are present in a space together vs just hearing their voice through headphones.
Why should there be a limit on human productivity? After all it means we are getting more efficient at the things we are doing, doing more with less, is that not a laudable goal? Any time we have approached a limit we have found a way to cheat it, that’s cause for celebration.
This sounds like an argument against TV or movies or the internet. Those things are also substitutes for real life experiences and yet people still spend huge amounts of time with them. VR doesn’t have to preclude the rest of the world. It’s an addition to it. When you don’t have the money or the time or the energy to go out it’s nice to be able to jump into something like VR and have fun with others from the comfort of your home.
Well, I do watch movies with others in VR on a fairly regular basis and it’s great. Could be better, headsets need to be more comfortable and pass through has room for improvement but both of those things are on the very near horizon.
Look at the cambria demos, they’re already doing mixed reality by blending the room with the experience. No reason that can’t be used to put your couch, coffee table and SO in the virtual theatre. You also have to consider that a lot of the younger people using these won’t have dogs or kids to worry about.
Both the other commenters make good points. Meta is uniquely positioned to build the first metaverse. It may not be the only metaverse and it may not come out on top in the end but it will likely prove a lot of the technology and patterns that will continue to be used. That’s why I don’t think they’re mismatched, you might be right about them being too early. They’ll have to build a lot of it themselves and try to stay competitive in the market at the same time. Difficult, but other companies have done this. They’re off to a good start as well since their hardware currently dominates the market.
Except it will have no games, cost $4k and will probably be difficult to port anything to. Great for Apple’s current mbpro market but ignored by everyone else.
Personally, I think that both TV and movies are going to be driving VR adoption. The Netflix of VR movies could be huge if they were able to offer the right content. A fully virtual theatre that gets new releases could also be big. The edge that VR had in these areas is that it essentially gives you a private theatre that you can enjoy with your friends and family. Leveraging a social network so that you can deliver notifications like “X is currently watching Y. Click to join” would be big. People already kind of do this with watch parties and discord.
Here’s an enlightening calculation to do: total volume of fuel used by nuclear power plants over 100 years providing enough energy for the world vs total volume of turbine blades doing the same. Feel free to be generous with your lifetime estimates for turbines, the results will still be shocking. You can also repeat the calculation for any other fuel source or power generation method and be equally impressed.
I’d argue that if you wear it, especially in a highly visible location like over your eyes, then it is a fashion accessory. Like a hat or glasses it may serve a purpose but that doesn’t negate the need for it to look good.
Fashion will be vastly more important for mixed reality than it is for smart phones. A smart phone is more akin to a watch, fashion wise. You usually only see it when it’s being used. Mixed reality devices will be visible all the time and they will also mediate our social interactions with others.
Maybe it’s just me but the magic leap 2 looks way dorkier than a good pair of ski goggles. You could probably make them look more like shield sunglasses if you prefer that vibe.
I don’t think it’s that ambitious. Cambria is standalone, has colour pass through for mixed reality and has balanced the weight distribution better by using pancake lenses and putting the battery on the back. It will certainly be usable while sitting or standing still anywhere, although people will look at you weird if you do it in a coffee shop. It took Meta 3 years to get there from Quest 1 so I’d say given 5 years and some decent sales they could get it down to something that wouldn’t look too strange and would be comfortable enough to wear all day and would work while walking although I imagine that would pose similar risks as walking while using your phone. Instead of black rectangles we’ll be seeing ski-goggles everywhere.
Did you try having your gaze put elements into easy reach of a cursor or pointer instead of using the gaze as a pointer?
Gaze is often an indicator of intent so rather than have it do something it would be more natural for it to make something else easier to do.
An example, using a laser pointer style interface for VR controllers can sometimes be awkward because small motions can move the pointer a great distance making it hard to pick out a precise target. Gaze could be used as an aim mode where motion of the pointer would be limited/mapped to a smaller area surrounding the spot being looked at.
It could also be used as a meta key to change the function of buttons, look to the right of a window and a button click fast forwards, look left and the same button rewinds.
I don’t think your analogy is correct. Colour and alteration of angle and shadow/lines produces a functionally distinct effect ie those who like the Warhol may dislike and the original for a variety of reasons including taste or whether it would match the decor where they would hang it. So it is not the same software with the variable names and casing or language changed, that would be invisible or relatively inconsequential to the end user. At worst it is a reskinned application but I think the effect is deeper than that.
I dunno, I prefer the Warhol over the original. Should art like this not exist or be heavily discouraged or controlled by licensing fees? Copyright seems to be stuck in a scarcity mindset. Especially for static images whose market far exceeds the ability of artists to keep up with. The bigger problem seems to me that artists still don’t have a great way to sell directly to their customers.
It may only be 5% of people that care about space exploration by itself but a lot more will care if we’re lucky enough to only get a house sized impactor as a warning shot. At that size there’s a hope that there would only be severe property damage and no loss of life.
Chelyabinsk should have been that wake up call but most people don’t think about it deeply enough to realize how much worse it can be.
If we’re unlucky then the first big impact we experience will be our last.
I’m aware of several heavily subsidized renewable projects in my local area alone that have failed to deliver usable power to a grid that sorely needs it. I’m aware of 0 independently funded ventures even though my area has some of the highest electricity prices in the country.
My question is given this market where you have high prices and high demand, why do I not see any entrepreneurs building small solar installations and cutting deals with municipalities to provide some of their grid power?
That tells me that the technology, cost, and/or regulation isn’t viable yet. Promises of future developments do nothing to address current needs. I have a feeling that 100% renewable generation is fast becoming a “20 years away” problem since I’ve been hearing the same promises for at least 20 years now and those older than me likely remember even older promises.
I didn’t say that I think it’s impossible. I’m asking for the reasoning behind the belief that it would be the optimal solution. In this context a lot of details are being talked about to argue for or against the viability of nuclear but I don’t see the same critical process being applied to the assertions that we can run everything on solar and batteries. I’ve put forward many of the same questions that have been answered for nuclear, it is up to the solar proponents to answer them.
Exactly what I thought when I saw the dimensions and tonnage. Honestly they could probably just refurbish this equipment, add some telemetry and station keeping jets and load it onto a Falcon 9. That’d be a great first if it was a refurbished telescope deployed by a refurbished rocket.
If small commercial solar operations are in fact cheap and have a high return then why am I not seeing startup solar power generation companies everywhere? Surely it would be a hot industry to get into if you can put it anywhere and make a profit?
Even so, when people say that we’ll just spread out this energy generation infrastructure everywhere I still want to know the actual numbers. Are there enough rooftops and vacant lots in LA to provide all the necessary power? What about lower density areas? What about northern climates with lots of snow and rain? There is still maintenance involved, installation costs are likely increased by doing this piecemeal rather than at a single site. Are we assuming all of this will be undertaken by individual homeowners or is it a commercial operation? Leaving it up to individuals seems like it would drastically slow roll out due to a lot of people not being able to afford it or simply being unwilling to have panels. If commercial then the available locations become very limited. These things can’t just be hand waved away.
Plenty of people choose sacrifice, hard work and discomfort because they find more fulfillment in it than idle leisure. Those who wish to remain behind can stay put, just don’t stand in the way.