Being someone who DJs in virtual environments (pretty much exclusively Altspace), yes, and also yes.
On the one hand, pretty much every event has a few people that mention not having visual legs and arms. Most either simply don't dance, or dance anyway without caring about the fact they only have a visible head, torso, and hands.
VRChat does approximate arms and legs, basically pinning the arms to the tracked hands and doing basic locomotion animations for the legs that follow the inputs of the user. It's not perfect, and I don't particularly care myself, but it does provide that little-bit-extra immersion that some seem to need.

I mean, the "timeline" in GTA Online is all kinda mashed together anyway, so in a uni/metaverse where all time exists more or less simultaneously, this would mean 1) this could totally happen and 2) we can do it again...and again...and again...if for no other reason than to grind out GTA$ for the Oppressor Mk12

I think he spelled "Money and control" wrong.

Each sideloaded app is a cut not collected by Apple. It's also a potential vector for a UX-breaking experience. Both of these go against the vibe I've gotten from Apple since pretty much the beginning. It's not like their position is without merit, I've argued multiple times that their way has its advantages. They are essentially saying "in exchange for some more control/restrictions on the system, we are essentially guaranteeing that a given device/app will work as intended (until planned obsolescence kicks in anyway)"... It's the same reason I am a console gamer as opposed to a member of the PC Master Race. Yes, the PC can potentially be much better, after investing effort, time, money, etc., but I know when I get my Xbox, and I get an Xbox game, that it's gonna work on that Xbox, or it's on them to make it right, not me. I am willing in this scenario to give up that extra power/performance/flexibility for a consistent and confident experience. That said, I'm an Android guy. Have been since the early days of looking through the glass at all the nice "made for iOS" gadgets that didn't exist for Android because developers couldn't/wouldn't develop the hardware and software to handle all the differences in the fragmented Android space. That's not so much a selling point now, but it certainly was at the time. While I'm by no means a "power Android user", I do enjoy the ability to root/sideload/otherwise customize my experience on Android, and do play in that space from time to time. I don't begrudge those that want to have the walled garden up for themselves or their loved ones, but I also don't believe for a second that it's about "security and privacy".

This. All my customers, all of them in the US, all of them "make things". Are some cutting back temporarily because of demand/component availability? Sure. But business for me is kinda booming (Maintenance/Service/Training) at the moment as a result, and these same customers are still proceeding with existing and making new cap-ex purchases/expansions, so they're planning to continue making things for a while yet.
We can certainly make more, and I hope for many reasons we can get to the point that we do make more, but GTFO with the "we don't make anything" line.

This was the question that I had/still have: no matter the reason/mindset/plan behind this whole deal, will OF creators stay on the platform or move elsewhere? I mean, on the one hand, if it genuinely was the payment processors backing out, then what's to say the new/replacement processor won't end up facing and buckling under pressure sometime in the near future? On the other hand, putting a gun to your own head ala Blazing Saddles hints at a particular form of crazy that I can't imagine a huge number of creators wanting to deal with.

I'm struggling to find what part of operating a vehicle in their example doesn't constitute "driving"...I too enjoy operating a vehicle on longer interstate trips. I understand you may not, so if I may make a suggestion, take your own advice and resume simply staring out a window.

And here is the crux of the issue. If we are going to go to an fully-autonomous driving situation, it needs to be 100% taking humans out of the equation. In doing so, while removing the intuition and judgment that humans bring to the table, it also eliminates the unpredictability and chaos that humans also bring. And don't think that humans won't be involved in the process at all, though their input may be significantly diminished. I'm definitely oversimplifying things, but it may be similar on the human interface side of things to operating an elevator. Simple interfaces for summon/dismiss, destination input, diversion interrupts (pee breaks, etc.), and various communication/alarm interfaces. I also think that human driving will eventually be relegated to either tracks only (similar to horse parks now), or at most kept to some areas that for whatever reason cannot be governed by whatever system controls the autonomous driving (undeveloped roads, perhaps).

Is this really a boomer thing? I mean, I'm certainly no boomer, and I do enjoy and use it when I have WiFi in the air, but whether it's a sub-hour puddle jump or an international flight that takes the better part of a day, I've never been in a situation where I couldn't plan ahead and make sure I have some stuff downloaded (whether it's music, videos/shows/movies, games, whatever) before I get on the plane. And yeah, it is nice to be disconnected for a bit here and there. And, it is just as nice to reconnect.

This. I know we have ACAS (and myriad related acronyms and gubbins) that seem to work pretty well in the aviation world (disclaimer: not a pilot, just enough of an enthusiast to seem expert to the non-educated mass), and I know we have the tech to have drone-to-drone communication and avoidance, but I am skeptical at this point to see it in play at more real-world scale and conditions (be that distance, terrain, weather, other sources of interference, etc.). Could it work as intended at a high enough accuracy and uptime to make that part of the equation work? Sure, and it will be awesome to see that. Until then, though, I know I don't want to see or trust a cloud of Joe Randoms buzzing about overhead, for fear that will turn into a Random Rain of horror.

This. Also an automation guy here (industrial robot integrator), I've definitely had to listen to a workforce hearing rumors that their employer is looking to expand automation. I totally get those fears, and for the most part (at least in what I've seen) they've been mostly unwarranted. From what I have seen, automation has always been introduced or expanded not as a way to reduce labor costs (because especially in the short term, they really don't), but as a response to either expansion of current processes or an introduction of a new process. At worst, if it does reduce the workforce, it's usually in the form of not replacing workers that have left the company for whatever reason. Also, it sometimes actually results in an increase of the workforce, as automation still requires human operators, inspectors (unless your process requires something like x-ray or IR monitoring, there is still no substitute for the human eye at the end of the day), and...and here is the kicker...maintenance. In the past 1.5-2 years, I have had a huge increase of requests for my time for training as companies that can find them are pulling warm bodies that can hold wrenches off the street that have little to no experience working with the equipment before being told to follow someone else around and try to learn by osmosis.

I travel almost constantly, so yeah, dude's right. You have to confirm the floor level and set the guardian if I move to a different location. A process that takes maybe 60 seconds, and reminds me to be aware of the physical/"real" space I'm in before disconnecting one of my senses from that space. By no means is that 60 seconds an immersion-breaking thing. And yes, if it does remember the space, it doesn't make me reset the floor height and guardian every single time, -unless- it detects something has been placed in the area (could be a curtain, shoe, errant speck of dust), upon which it asks me to confirm the guardian space before proceeding. This notion of "hey, there might be something new in here with you, might wanna check that out", to me anyway, falls into the category of "something I'd like to know". So yeah, I'm sorry this dude feels incredibly inconvenienced by the fact that the device is looking out for the operator, and I'm sorry their eyes are offended that a device that performs all the features of a headset doesn't offer the clarity and resolution of 8K monitors even though the headset is priced well below many of those monitors.

But if you do nothing, when you could have done something, you're gonna make an enemy of those who have had to deal with the casualties, whether by occupation or by relation. So either way, you're gonna make enemies. Sucks to be in that hole. So you've gotta make a choice. I'm not saying it was the right one, the best one, could have been done better, but a choice was made. And when the person in charge at the time actively decides to go right when literally all signs say the right way is left, because his ego is eternally hungry and must continually be fed, it's tougher to argue against shutting down for a massive outbreak of death sniffles.

Valid points, all, but missing the point entirely. It's not about whether BO has any sort of solid ground upon which to base their protest, or whether the selection of SpaceX was because they are truly the best option at this point. It's just reporting that like a lawyer filing for mistrial/filing for appeal for a convict despite video and DNA evidence, and a live confession, Bezos is doing exactly what he should be doing in his position, despite the fact that the chances of anything meaningful coming of it (beside maybe a token few million to design a coupler for the crew shitter) being effectively zero. Which brings this whole story to an excitement level of "ok...and?"

Nah, to them it's not "taking so long", it's "providing an opportunity to advertise sales and Shark Cards to our players". Now, if they can get around to minimizing the time I get to play the Los Santos Cloud Watcher minigame in between every job, that'd be great.

As has been endlessly mentioned, these are test launches/landings. Not knowing what the test parameters were in this case, but if they got the data they needed and/or successfully tested what they were after in this instance, then it was a complete success. Now, if and only if the parameters include landing and recovery of an intact and undamaged unit would it be considered a failure. Without that parameter, not blowing up is just a bonus, not a mark of success or failure.