dahwolf

The article confirms my suspicion that it's not going to be great for productivity. Limited FOV, hard to read things, limited/more difficult input methods, and it being tiring to wear for a stretch of time.

It also doesn't seem to be designed for gaming, not for games where you move a lot and require fast and precise input.

The part of the presentation where usually developers show their finest creations this time was rushed and showed low poly toys apps as we've known from AR apps for a decade now. Sure, you can say it takes time for the ecosystem to develop, but that ignores a big problem.

It doesn't just take time. It's beyond the reach of most app developers entirely. It's extraordinarily expensive and difficult to build a compelling 3D world that is convincing enough for somebody to want this device as well as keep that headset on. It needs to be spectacular and convincing. Because ordinary consumer experiences, say the PS5, already deliver that fidelity and engagement. You need to up that significantly given the cost and discomfort of this device.

It seems to me that only the likes of Disney can pull that off, and not the small app developer. Even for Disney it will be a questionable ROI.

So what remains? A device for solitary passive entertainment? In a world already saturated with digital experiences and content?

False. The API has a free tier, followed by 200$ monthly credit, followed by outrageous prices.

Here's a depressing thought: I'm from the Netherlands. We're dense and have small roads and parking spots. So monster trucks like these are impractical, expensive to own (road tax based on weight) and expensive to drive due to the poor mileage and high gas prices.

None of these things seems to matter. I'm in my 40s and can't remember seeing a single car like this in my entire life until about 5 years ago. Now I very regularly see them, they're on the rise.

Some people just want to have a huge fucking truck for no apparent rational or adult reason. And it seems that as they make an appearance, it inspires others.

It fits in a generic pattern I'm seeing around me. People with disposable wealth will spent it on ridiculous life "upgrades" that make no rational sense. I'm seeing giant houses being built whilst there's 1-2 people living in it, and most of the day nobody at all. I'm talking about homes with so much space that you don't know what to do with it. Just because you can.

In these times of energy transition and ultra high energy prices, I see neighbors investing in an outdoor sauna.

It's not that I want to police what people can or cannot spent their money on, I'm just saying it's way out of bounds. Beyond the reasonable. Excessive resource usage with no immediate purpose by any stretch of the imagination.

But I'll also come to terms with the idea that perhaps I'm not that much better. My guilty pleasure is annual very remote travel, which as we know is a massive contributor to CO2 output.

If taxation or discouragement does not have the desired effect and banning is difficult if not unwanted, my conclusion is that behavioral change is not to be expected much from.

The responses are nihilistic libertarian, as is typical here.

When a private company takes the sum of human knowledge without permission, attribution or payment and then monetizes it via the back door whilst cutting of any connection between the intended consumer and publisher, then we're dealing with a system I'd describe as criminal. It cannot be morally defended as "fair" in any major economical or political system.

The fact that they call it "Open" AI shows the level of trolling involved.

Don't understand or don't agree? Because it's really very simple to understand.

Generally people need some kind of incentive to produce content. This could be just the thought of somebody, an actual human, having consumed your content. Or a like, a comment exchange that further enriches the topic. Perhaps it leads to a new follower or even a new (online) friend. A job opportunity. Even a date. Or maybe just plain ad impressions to make your effort worthwhile.

The picture of content production was already bleak. Google gets to take it all for free and is the traffic controller deciding who gets the crumbs, and even then is also the sole advertiser. But at least they might throw you some traffic, leading to all the interactions I just mentioned.

OpenAI just steals your shit without permission, credit or payment and completely cuts of any direct human interaction with the original content or its maker.

How can you not "understand" the hostility? This is existential not just for the open web, also the closed web. Have you missed the developments at Twitter, StackOverflow, Reddit?

User-agent: GPTBot

Allow: /directory-1/

Let's all make this "directory-1" and fill it with absolute garbage.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest

Another factor that is commonly overlooked which keeps prices from falling: the price only needs to be affordable to buyers.

When supply is very low, you only need a small group of buyers being able to afford sustained high prices. It doesn't matter if the general public can't afford a 400K home. Only buyers need to be able to afford it, and you'll always have a group that can.

In 1996, our school had a break room with 30 DOS-based computers running Pegasus. Each computer would typically have a queue of 3-4 people behind the current user, all eager to check their mail. Most had no internet at home or very limited/expensive access.

Me and some friends were into programming. We would exit Pegasus to return back to the DOS prompt, and then write simple programs that persist in memory, so basically running in the background. Next, we'd reopen Pegasus and left the station.

The next in line would log in to their email and be busy with it for some 5 minutes after which our program would activate. It would draw random pixels on screen, mirror the entire screen vertically, output random tones on the beeper, all kinds of weird stuff to suggest that the machine is possessed.

We'd be hiding behind some column observing it and laughing.

Pretty pathetic, but good times.

Not quite getting this article.

When you semantically describe your HTML, indeed the intent and meaning of your data becomes easily machine-readable.

That's not a solution, it's the entire problem. In today's ecosystem it means somebody takes your shit and runs with it. That's why the walled gardens are getting ever higher walls. "Open data" is an existential threat if you're the one paying for the creation/hosting of that data.

An unlimited amount because your advise does not scale.

Society has rapidly digitized. We now have billions of people using big tech account systems to access things. And the things are no longer toys, they represent things of real value.

We need legislation. It should be illegal to randomly deny service, to not disclose a reason, to not have a sane appeal process.

1. Especially for a niche business, contextual ads should be great. Appear in search results as well as content pages related to your niche. Relevant by default and requires zero personal data.

2. I'm afraid it's too late. The centralization has already happened. Most people consume content from a handful of mobile apps (youtube, social networks, etc). AI will escalate this even further. Small websites outside of big tech can't really monetize content reliably, exceptions aside. Likewise, your content has to be extremely special for people wanting to pay for it.

I hate Tailwind just as much as the author but it's not a technical problem, more like a business and education problem.

Things like Tailwind (and formerly Bootstrap) are popular because they are easy to use. It's straightforward, brings results quickly, you don't need much of an artistic eye nor do you need to learn advanced CSS.

The author sounds like a CSS master/guru. The problem is that the typical web developer sucks at CSS. They know like 10% of it and much of that limited knowledge is outdated. Very few of them are going to level up anytime soon, hence your working situation is that you have multiple "amateurs" that barely have any clue what they're doing fighting the cascade. That's how you get disastrous unmaintainable CSS.

Tailwind is McDonalds.

A card reader is a stand-alone device and has nothing to do with any web tech.

You put your ATM card in the device, enter your PIN code, and then the device has a tiny camera that scans the QR code on the web page. Next, you can see the transaction details on the device and confirm. It will then output a signing code which you enter on the web page.

It is what was commonly used in some EU countries before we switched to mobile banking apps. Most banks still supply them for when you do very large online transactions.

Enabling 3-D secure on all transactions leads to lower conversion rates, therefore typically a hybrid model is used where its enabled/disabled per transaction whether it is needed based on a risk score.

I'm sorry but using strong authentication to make my payment is not a burden, it's a bloody feature.

Here's how much of a "burden" that is: you hold your ATM card next to the terminal. Done. Paid. Every once in a while (based on a configurable max per week) it will prompt for a PIN. Which you enter in 5 secs. That would be 1 in 10 payments.

Online payment: scan payment QR with phone, which takes me to my banking app. Authentication is FaceID, TouchID or PIN. Then you click "Yes". Done.

Both methods are highly secure, require no or minimal input and are extremely fast.

Quite a few companies are somewhat reasonable and steering towards a hybrid model where people come in 1-3 days a week.

The unexplored outcome of hybrid is that there's no such thing as hybrid.

In a hybrid model, you come into the office and find people sitting in chairs with a headphone on. Because they're just as much in calls as they were at home. Because part of the meeting participants on any given day is not there.

Hence, this nice physical face-to-face meeting, a supposed benefit of returning to the office, does not materialize.

Well, perhaps you'll at least do some ad-hoc brainstorming with your colleague at the coffee machine. Sure, but you need to put the outcome of that in writing...for the people that are not there.

Hence, this mode of virtual working cannot be undone. You can't do a "little" virtual working. When you come into the office you largely continue to work as if from home. Perhaps without the sweatpants.

For the record, I'm not anti-office. I enjoy the socializing, lunch walks, etc. And in our increasingly touchless home-based society, it's not that bad of a deal to get out of the house for 2 or 3 days a week. Finally, we should empathize with juniors. In my experience, remote mentoring is a piss poor substitute for the real thing.

Some have the belief that hard drug users are temporarily down, but with the proper help can be converted back into productive citizens.

I think we overestimate for how many of them this is a realistic path. Quite a few of them will struggle for life. Have no family or a dysfunctional one, no marketable skills or ability to gain them, mental issues and cognitive shortcomings, wrong kind of friends/network, a whole host of issues.

Miracle comeback stories will grab the attention, but shouldn't be seen as the normal path. The normal path may be dedicating enormous resources for very little return.

I don't have the answers. You can't do nothing but you can't babysit somebody for their entire life either.

You may want to read the actual article which explains how replies very much end up on their instance and therefore require moderation. They will 100% host all replies + all media attached to it. That's how federation works.

Yes, defederation is per instance but cuts of all users of that instance from BBC. Here's a fresh example:

https://social.anoxinon.de/@Curator@mastodon.art/11080988949...

Pretty large instance that defederated before BBC even started.

The more awkward differences compared to now are much larger families and home cooking being the standard.

It's good to experiment, but in this case even without experimentation you can draw some important conclusions about the benefits of centralized social media:

- You own your account, but not the infra. I'm sure that BBC can manage to run Mastodon by throwing resources at it, but still...not needing to do that at all is appealing.

- You don't have any liability regarding the moderation of replies, in fact, there's barely anything to moderate. When a nutjob replies to your tweet, you're not responsible for it. Nor are you responsible for the handling of personal data of people replying. All of this is not your problem, which is nice.

- For the time being, centralized social media has superior reach potential, not just because of the bigger audience potential, your account is also vastly easier to discover through search and algorithms. As an example, BBC world news has 40M followers on Twitter, whilst on Mastodon an account having 100K+ followers is exceptionally rare.

- Federation/defederation wars may reduce your reach even further. I think the risk for BBC is fairly small as it's typically not that controversial, but inter-instance wars is a big thing on Mastodon.

Bottom line is that you're adding operational and legal headaches with very little to show for it in comparison to the big networks.

They aren't challenging the status quo using this method at all.

As one of the debate examples given: the US should embrace a system of universal healthcare. Instead of actually engaging with the topic, they go all meta on it. Hence, no progress will ever be made.

I think that's an excellent point. Social media fatigue seems at its peak in this time of transition, further accelerated by the COVID era.

People are becoming aware of their over-usage and the largely minimal or even negative benefits that come from social media altogether. Or just bored and indifferent about it. The fatigue is further strengthened when they soon learn that the alternatives are worse or at best just moving the problem.

I'd advocate for people to stop rather than cheer for any new potential winner. Just uninstall the app and walk away. It was all a lie anyway. You're not in a "community". You do not actually have followers. You did not learn anything new that you couldn't learn elsewhere.

They are lies we tell ourselves as we play the slot machine. Throw it in the trash.

It's pretty common that after a peak of new signups, most do not convert to long term active users. This doesn't even take into account that most "active users" tend to never post anything, they just leech. They still count as MAU. I'm sure that Meta has plenty of ways to boost that number in the long term but overall I find the entire thing underwhelming.

Threads is text-based Instagram. But not even that as you can very well include photos. It has exactly the same shallow culture as Instagram: commercial, flat, vain.

Meta has openly expressed that it's disinterested or even hostile to news/journalism making their way to the platform (which comes with a lot of political flame-wars), instead to focus on making it a "fun" platform. Quite obviously because advertisers prefer networks without controversy.

Users may self-censor as on Threads the link to your real name is not very far away. Many users may have a real name Insta account linked up which in turn is linked to your Facebook account. Even if not visibility linked to your real name, internally you should assume it's there. So who knows what happens to all those accounts when you step over the line in Threads?

Hence, it's not Twitter which is defined by the culture war taking the main stage. Twitter is raw, edgy and toxic. It's also known for its real-time coverage of events, which Threads so far lacks. It also produces quite a lot of original content, whether they be memes or otherwise. You'll find none of that originating on Meta networks.

As Twitter seems on its way down, especially high follower users (such as journalists) are lost. There is no longer a "cultural network" where you push a message and get reach. None of the alternatives work for this purpose either.

I have no idea what will become of Twitter, but I do know to keep an open mind as we live in wild times. Just because Musk is a chaos monkey does not mean that it will not eventually rebound or even surpass old Twitter.

And here we finally agree that most outrage is cheap theater. People abandon principles as soon as there's a cost to it.

Again: do you equally call for the removal of your Muslim co-workers, based on their believes, which on this matter are on average far more..."restrictive"?

You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck") the criticism on Brendan if you're not also willing to apply the same criticism to pretty much every muslim worldwide.

So, do you measure by one standard, or two?

You're changing the subject. The OP claimed that the CEO doesn't want people like him to exist. Such a thing was never expressed, so it's made up. A blatant lie. Be precise with criticism and accusations if you want to be taken serious.

My second point was regarding hypocrisy and hollow principles. You can't use a browser out of moral principle but happily use stuff from countries where there's a death penalty for being LGBTQ+.

If that is the cost (cheap pile-ons to go after someone's job) would you apply the same method to any of your moslim colleagues? Or is that "different"?

"There's no religious grounds for opposing it because marriage is a legal matter."

No, it isn't. For some it's strictly a legal matter, for others it's both a legal matter and a religious matter. That's why you can legally marry in 5 minutes by placing a signature, and separately marry "for church".

"The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing"

That's not the point of the ritual.

Blatant misinformation and character assassination, as Brave's CEO never said such a thing. His former Mozilla colleagues confirmed that throughout his many years there he's never shared a single word that one might interpret as homophobic.

You second lie is your supposed inability to use products by someone that would actually be homophobic. You use such products every single day, unless you completely opted out of modernity.