shock-value

I tend to think the same. To be clear, I too have an Oculus and I also think VR is really really neat. But this whole pining after "the metaverse" is really silly.

Companies may develop experiences analogous to a Second Life, or Roblox, or World of Warcraft, or any other popular MMO (made more immersive by the VR medium), but I doubt they will have any further reach than those. At least I don't know why they would, anyway. To be fair, those games are successful and make lots of money, but compared to Facebook's current business they are a niche concern. So their enthusiasm seems misplaced to me.

Plus, VRChat already exists.

The issue with Japan is not specifically the decline nor absolute level of overall population. It's rather the demographic makeup which is shifting older. The next few decades will be increasingly difficult for them as their economy will need to support a larger level of retirees. https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2019/

China has a similar issue coming down the line. https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2019/

For reference, the U.S. population pyramid looks a bit "healthier" (more balanced), though the retirement of the boomer generation will still pose a challenge. https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...

I got a third party halo strap for my Quest 2 and it vastly increased comfort and ability to wear it for extended periods without fatigue. Might want to look into that.

I’m not excited for AR at all. Conversely, I’m extremely excited for VR and have only become more so after getting my first headset (Quest 2 primarily used with SteamVR).

The price can always be raised at the conclusion of a leasing period so there isn't really any unusual trickery involved. If anything the disclosure that the free months apply only to the first leasing period is less deceptive than raising the rent without any warning upon lease renewal.

> It’s just navigating to the rough vicinity, instead of an exact location.

Even that is problematic if they don’t know enough about the route to gauge whether it is viably navigable or hazardous.

I disagree. If Google doesn’t know enough about the walking path to even be able to plot it on the map, then they shouldn’t represent to users that there is a navigable path at all.

The dotted arc could easily be interpreted as “this isn’t the exact path but there is a navigable walking path in the general direction of this line” which is just as unhelpful and potentially dangerous.

But, you likely would pay 5% of salary (or more) for a paper and pencil (to continue with your analogy) if you had no other choice and there was no alternative tool that could substitute. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The things in your first paragraph are all useful, but not killer apps (IMO). Just nice conveniences.

My prediction is that Pokemon Go will prove to be by far the biggest splash to have been made in the phone AR space, and in the larger scheme of gaming it so far hasn't been more than a long-since-passed fad.

I'm pretty doubtful that even glasses-mounted AR will catch on among consumers in day-to-day life -- but there could be significant specific use cases e.g. education, certain professions, etc. On-the-job type stuff.

Having experienced VR as an owner of a Quest 2 linked to a VR capable PC -- I'm very bullish on VR in the home entertainment space -- not just games but also pre-recorded or live video content, etc. Not sure about social but I'm sure Facebook will try.

It literally isn’t. The phrase “protected class” has a specific legal definition in the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_State...

You aren't crazy of course, but all indications are they are quite safe. Additionally, a lot of the excitement around mRNA techniques in general is that it is actually a much "lighter touch" than others in various ways -- e.g. not editing genes like CRISPR, using a much simpler delivery method (lipid delivery vehicle vs adenovirus delivery as in the other vaccines), etc.

There are good uses for page content to know what's in the JWT (display username, show logged-in status, etc). Cookies also have stricter size limits. Additionally, cookies by themselves are uniquely vulnerable to CSRF, although I guess these days using SameSite property correctly mitigates that.

With this method there is no additional per-user state, fortunately.

You can also store a JWT in localStorage and require an additional secure signature for it within a cookie (http-only). Best of both worlds.

A good option is doing both.

Store a security token in localStorage and additionally store a secure signature for it in a secure, HTTP-only cookie. On your backend, verify validity of both the token and its additional signature contained in the cookie.

I think there is no doubt it isn't uploading a raw video signal. But all kinds of things could be derived from that video and uploaded.

They were using a quote from the article to support their own point, not stating that it represented the article's overall conclusion.

You can’t guarantee access to a limited resource so it isn’t a reality anywhere. At best they redefined the meaning of the word “right” which I am also strongly against.

That's not what "lie" means.

> One might consider “clothing” a right

Clothing as a "right" is as ridiculous as health care as a "right", in my opinion. Though I also believe that governments should make efforts to provide both to those lacking them.

The way I look at it is some rights are good ideas, some are bad ideas, and some are nonsensical and unworkable ideas (regardless of whether they would be good or bad in an idealized world). Health care as a right is the last of those.

To be clear I'm not saying I think it's a bad idea to have universal health coverage because it's politically contentious. In fact I'm not saying it's a bad idea at all; I think it's a good idea. I just think framing it as a "right" is bad. In my opinion, doing so diminishes things that are actual (and hard-fought) rights, such as non-discrimination and freedom of speech, religion, etc.

> If you're in a remote area, your access to treatment may be of a different quality/difficulty to obtain but everyone in your area will have the same difficulty.

It might be almost or entirely nonexistent (e.g. you live in an extremely remote area, you've hiked on foot into uninhabited terrain, you might have a rare difficult-to-treat disease that would require so many specialists as to deprive others of care, etc.). If there are situations where one might not realistically be able to get health care, why would we frame health care as a "right"? In my opinion it's a fantasy and diminishes the meaning of the word. That's why I was trying to more narrowly pin it down to "non-discrimination of access to health care" in my comment.

All of the things you mentioned are in the spirit of "if this thing is available, everyone must have fair access to it".

If there is to be a vote, everyone (of age) must be able to participate. If you are to be tried, you must have representation, a jury of peers, and possibility of appeals (alternative being that case against you is dropped). If protest permitting is instituted, they must be provided fairly and expeditiously.

Equal treatment is another type of right and even more different than a hypothetical "right to health care".

The issue with health care is that it might not be available (depending on if you are in a remote area, public health circumstances e.g. strains due to a pandemic, limited specialized equipment, etc.). So a "right" to utilize it is unrealistic. At best you can posit a "right to non-discrimination of access to health care on the basis of X,Y,Z" where X,Y,Z can be such things as "gender, race, age, etc." or more politically contentiously "preexisting conditions, enrollment in insurance, ability to pay, etc".

To be clear I also favor public universal health insurance of some kind. But I also think that considering that health care is or could be a "right" is kind of ridiculous.

Most modern mirrorless cameras have such hardware (usually denoted "in-body image stabilization"). The "repurposing" of it to acquire multiple captures at various slight offsets and combine them intelligently is maybe a bit more recent, but still pretty common at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization#Sensor-shi...

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/support/ilc/psms/ilce7r...

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000...

https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilizat...

The egg that's on Rockstar's face has more to do with how much money they likely left on the table by not diagnosing and fixing this issue early on. (And assuming they had a team overseeing this aspect of performance with adequate tools to observe and debug it should have been trivial.)

I personally feel like the magnitude of this -- especially compared to how simple the solution is -- makes it a miss that's really much more extreme than most others.

EDIT: Though I agree that "shameful" isn't the right word to use. Rockstar wronged themselves much more so than any other party.

It's not necessarily unreasonable, it just depends on what kind of product they want to offer. S3, Google Storage, etc. do not have a maintenance window that I'm aware of. That's not to say they would never go down, but if they do you would expect an alert and an apology, at least. Many application require this kind of expected uptime, but of course there are others (backup, etc) that would not.

Interesting, I think this is the spot: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0357838,-118.169596,3a,75y,2...

Seems like when the Street View pic was taken this was not a lane. I'm shocked it was converted into one. Seems very dangerous, for human or AI.

You used the word "failed" which implies they sought something and fell short.