Sure, there are a lot of movies, but I think that's just half the problem. As I mentioned, I feel that the Marvel TV series are more of an issue. These ad many many hours of superhero stuff to watch, and the problem is that movies then reference the series. You can't go to a movie and fully understand it without these references.

Not related to your rant, which I totally disagree with but feel no need to argue, as what I like is simply different than what you like. However, I have to disagree with your sig.

Digital is, by definition, perfect. Digital is order, it's something that is well defined. It's something that tells you precisely what it is. Even its imperfections are well defined.

Analogue is a mess. It's a collection of physical features which produce, by total happenstance (and tweaking) something that might be pleasant. It's something that can't be recreated precisely because it's imprecise by nature.

No, it doesn't depress me. Comparisons between versions of things is something I enjoy. It's like watching a movie of a book. They may be different, but even if they're both not great, noting the differences creates for me something which transcends the originals.

Granted, I know that's not the case for a lot of other people, but when someone tells me "that's Superman, but different in some ways", and these are ways I think I'd like (such as not being dark), this immediately makes me curious.

I agree that there is enough source material out there that people could make movies for years without having to tread over well trodden ground. Does it depress me? No. I can read books. I don't expect movie blockbusters to be terribly original.

What superhero movies are you specifically referring to that were "hammering over the head about societal issues"? I can't think of many, and those that did address social issues (Civil War, X-Men: Days of Future Past) followed well regarded comics about these issues (though haven't necessarily implemented them well).

"Superhero fatigue" actually comes from another direction: there are just so many movies you can watch that are basically the same, and too many tie-in Marvel TV series, which the movies referenced. So something that was originally a fun novelty, and, with the Avengers, built a satisfying story arc, became a chore to watch, with just too much stuff going on. It was initially something that anyone could watch and enjoy, and ended something only satisfying for superfans.

> Remember folks we need those high income white collar workers to employ all those plumbers everybody is so excited about.

That's not really it. We need those high income workers to pay taxes, that can then go support everyone. If you have a serious drop in taxes, the government would have less to spend on everything.

(Although at least in the context of the US, it seems like the current administration wants to reduce taxes anyway, as a way of reducing the deficit. Makes total sense.)

I think we're safe. Watches are normally worn on the left arm. :)

The quotes mentioned aren't "AI is providing a worse experience", they are "oh, no, we are losing our humanity". If your only reason to not use a technology is because you're worried that lamplighters will lose their jobs, then you will always be part of a small minority.

Like all marketing these days, 'AI' appears in this for no other reason than to attract views. The argument has little to do with AI, and if AI wasn't a thing, people would still argue the benefits of Minecraft as a tool to learn programming, in a very similar way. Minecraft isn't any better or worse for this because "we're in the age of AI". Well, actually if we were already fully in an age of AI it would likely have been just as bad as any other method of learning to program, as the kids learning to "program" Minecraft would just have used AI.

As a Quest user, I find the touch interface much superior to controllers when it comes to UI interaction. Holding a controller in your hand and pretending that it's your fingers is a lot more cumbersome than actually using your fingers.

You must remember that people do mostly content consumption. Most interactions are short, and definitely not two minutes straight. Sure, you won't be able to comfortably play a mobile game in the air, but scrolling or selecting things? That shouldn't be too tasking. I'm not young, I'm not a sporty person, but I still have no problem with that kind of interaction on the Quest. I imagine that the majority of people are unlikely to have problem with that.

Because they'd probably be better than most of what humans generate.

Most of the visual art I see today is AI generated, and I imagine that's the case for most people. That's because people can easily create an image that's imaginative. Sure, a lot of people create crap, but there's more than enough enjoyable stuff in there, much more than if people didn't have AI as a tool. I imagine this is true for music too.

After switching to Linux you're getting Win11 subscription nagging and reconfiguration? What Linux version are you using?

Taps, gestures or speech. So it would depend on what you want to do. Gestures are going to be the most comprehensive, as it allows "real" interaction with the objects overlayed on the scene. That's what's typically used in VR. It will look strange to passers by, but I'm sure people will get used to it like they got used to other peculiarities of public gadget interaction. Voice is already available for gadget control. Tapping the glasses is good for quick and simple interactions like pausing video or responding to a call.

There's also a good chance that at least initially the glasses will be paired with another device in your pocket/purse, such as a phone, and you could use that for interaction when speech/tapping isn't enough. That will save the need for understanding gestures.

Do they still contribute to cooling?

I'm wondering how many people use Notepad. I've been using Notepad++ for a long while, and haven't touched Notepad.

Personally I like the idea of markdown support. A lightweight word processor that saves results as raw text would be quite appealing over saving as RTF or DOCX or another such format.

The argument "you can express your creativity any time you want" is very flawed.

For one thing, it comes from a self professed artist/musician. You have spent the time learning to play the piano and producing art. It's a self serving commentary to say that you don't like AI art, because without it you belong to an exclusive club.

Then there's the point of *what* you can create. You can create piano music. What about music for other instruments? A lot of people want to compose something with instruments they don't know how to play. So they use synths. Do you feel that's cheating? Do you feel they create crap? People create good music this way.

What if you have the creativity and think of an image of what you want to draw, but you don't have the skills to make that drawing the way you want it? So you go to AI and iterate against it until you get something that matches your vision. Isn't that art? If you write a good movie script and get AI to be the actors and director, isn't that art?

Sure, anyone can create garbage with AI. But anyone can create garbage with a piano, a camera, a piece of paper or a canvas. Museums are full of pretentious pieces of crap drawn on canvas. Some modern composers make orchestraic music that few people even bear listening to. Or, if you're the pretentious type, pop music is now more stupid than it's ever been. And that's all created by people, with no AI help.

So it's obviously a bad argument to imply that if something can produce crap, there's no place for it. Sure, the easier to use the tools are, the faster people can churn crap. But the faster they can churn good stuff, too.