There's a not insignificant portion of people who used their headset for more than 15minutes. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but the reality is you are a random person guessing on the internet. Valve on the other hand is a company who has immense amounts of data about the active use of hardware, active use of a dedicated API developed for VR (SteamVR) and a shitton of sales figures specific to titles dedicated solely to VR. And they have this data not including the fact that the most popular headset on the market is independent of their API and their store. Oh and this isn't their first rodeo either, their previous one considered anything but "a flop".

Someone with actual data thought this was a good investment decision. The peanut gallery guessing game is meaningless.

*hits buzzer* "What is... an out of touch comment for 2026?"

And yet the majority of drones on the market transmit digital re-encoded signals even without low-latency. The point I was making is that just because something isn't suitable for the most extreme condition doesn't make it "horrible" or "foolish". The world is dominated by the general purpose use case, not the niche extremes. There are more city bicycles in the world than high end racing bikes. The fact you don't see them in the Tour De France doesn't make their existence horrible of foolish.

I've also had many drones, even have a small one for doing tricks on (I'm not very good, I'm not trying to compare myself to racers). None of them I guarantee you have the low latency anywhere near any number you quoted, but yet they are normal common products enjoyed by the vast majority of the people.

In that regard will the Quest 3 or Valve's Frame be used for PCVR e-Sports competitions? No. But that doesn't make them horrible or foolish. OP even talks about using it for iRacing which is even dumber since racing reaction is predictive not reactive, the course doesn't magically changes and low latency will not determine his performance either. It's an arbitrary metric which doesn't apply to the common person.

And I remind the readers that "common" here is already a niche product. If you're hoping someone caters to a high performance niche of an already niche platform, man are you shit outta luck.

It is possible to put laws into place that require how public-private partnerships work. It would be an imposition upon Flock and upon the police. And that is just fine, and as it should be.

Law enforcement contracting to the private sector should not be allowed to be a bypass of our rights.

The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.

Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likely arguments or rebuttals might be performed, again with the lawyer doing the review based on the citations that the Al tool provided.

There was a television series in the 2010s called Person of Interest where the premise was that one of the main characters had managed to achieve Al, but in order to satisfy legal constraints, the Al was only allowed to spit-out a single phrase about a person, rather than any detail of any sort. It was up to the limited number of persons associated with the Al to figure out why this 'person of interest' had been referenced, whether they were the perpetrator, the victim, a witness, or someone who would suffer downstream effects. While soft science fiction, and pretty clearly taking inspiration from the older series Quantum Leap in having to figure out why they were there, the concept had some merit as to how Al should really be used. It should be treated as untrusted, it should be treated as requiring thorough review. It should be treated as another tool available, but no more trustable or authoritative than any other, and arguably a bit less trustable, a bit less authoritative.

I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."

What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.

Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.

In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technology before widespread adoption, and in many of those industries either compatibility or outright law added extra constraint over time.

AI for the masses has taken a different development path. It's not ready and is misbehaving, to the detriment of many. "Hallucinations" should not be tolerated at this scale of deployment.

Not if you're the police.

Or as it was put nearly two millennia ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

This is why systems like this require human oversight. Arguably if there's a judicial review process for allowing searches, then this system needs to be required to use that process. With a system containing precinct, local court district, municipal, county, state, and federal district jurisdictions, the nature of setting up proper permissions alone should be a mandatory herculean effort, probably the most difficult part of the entire system.

Without such a system requiring judicial oversight to confirm that searches are authorized, all we have is a further slide into a police-state.

In the hard sciences, one usually is happy about advancements, not about keeping it secret until one publishes oneself.

Haha, no.

If you don't publish papers, you don't get a job and so you won't be doing hard science anymore due to an imperative to eat and find shelter. So no, no one is happy if someone takes their mostly complete results and scoops them to publication. It's also why that's widely regarded as what's technically known as a "dick move".

Then allow me to annoy you more, asshole!

You're both right but talking about different things. They are talking about battery storage as a grid supplier in a time of need. MW numbers quoted here are very much in terms power provided by batteries, not total energy stored. CAISO had over 49GWh of energy capacity back in 2024 already.

It is industry nomenclature to call power provided by storage facilities "storage" and talk about MW or GW when talking about how much it can instantaneously provide to the grid. These units don't come from journalists, they come from the California Energy Commission directly.

MW is storage, or rather the power provided to the grid by storage. The journos got it right as far as the nomenclature used by the California Energy Commission. They are talking about power capacity provided from storage. It's 17GW from battery storage. The actual stored energy capacity (I don't have current numbers) but was already 49GWh back in 2024 when the storage system only provided 12GW total.

There are more VR headsets that Nintendo 64s and Gamecubes combined, and the VR community is very active. It's a niche yes, but there's nothing "flop" about it. The question is one of price and performance. Apple flopped on price.

Also listing weight along shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Weight distribution on the head and the head mounting arrangement is orders of magnitude more critical than weight alone. The 100g numbers is arbitrary and useless.

No, the latency is a number that is bigger than you arbitrarily care it to be, nothing more, nothing less. Latency always exists, the question is what is the performance criteria required for the latency number.

That's where you fall down. You play racing games? Great. Now tell us how the 70ms affects you directly. Right now you're only complaining about a number, nothing more. You've provided no objective performance criteria, nor defined how it affects you.

I call bullshit on your blind testing. The requirements for a test setup to measure this in a blind way are extensive, and frankly useless to anyone unless you can link to your university paper where you've done so.

Anyway the reality speaks against you. What you measure, what you care about is irrelevant. The reality is virtually no consumers give a shit about latency that's even worse than the product you are talking about here and are successfully using it every day.

Don't like it? Don't buy it. But don't pretend it is unsuitable to produce a product with better performance than other products that countless people have already agreed is suitable.