You're applying an early adopter approach to products which are no longer early adopter category. At the start of any new technology you can expect precisely the problems you described, it was an incompatible cluster**** of problems.

But that was close to a decade ago now. The reality today is that anything that works on the Quest 3 that supports the hardware of the Quest 2 still works on that 6 year old headset. The reality is that anything you bought on PCVR for the a Rift CV1 back when you connected cables to your headset from your GPU in 2016 still works today on the current line-up.

Time to update your knowledge of the industry.

And frankly I've never head of Half-Life Alyx not running on *ANY* headset. Being a PCVR game targeting SteamVR means it runs completely independently of anything any headset manufacturer does. If your headset still supports the Oculus API, or Revive for the Vive API, or supports WMR, then there's zero reason that Alyx would crash for any reason other than you screwing up something on your PC. Alyx doesn't care what hardware you use, it only sees the SteamVR API.

There's nothing "foolish" about this. One of the biggest problems with early VR was tethering via cable. It was a miserable experience in every way and on that not infrequently caused people to actually ruin their headsets.

As for the latency, sorry but you are talking rubbish. VR is one of the most latency sensitive things we do. The slightest latency causes motion sickness and makes any fast paced gaming impossible to play. And yet both work perfectly fine with countless PCVR fans happily using the system from everything to high speed rhythm games to fast paced shooters.

The latency issue is something complained about by people who have not used the product. What you want is something you made up in your head, not a realistic requirement.

Anecdotally, I've had pretty solid results with gemini and grok not hallucinating when it comes to the law. Unlike these lawyers, I ask the LLMs to provide direct links to the legal code and/or case briefs, and they're usually pretty spot on, usually only disagreeing with one another in subtle ways that, in my non-lawyer mind, seem to be the kind of thing that could go either way. After all, the reason you end up in court to begin with is to have the court interpret exactly these kinds of disagreements that two parties might have on the precise meaning of the law.

ChatGPT, on the other hand, is just...bad. Just as with two years ago when it was all the rage, it still likes to speak in absolute terms (projecting high confidence) and link to shit that doesn't fucking exist. They've come up with many new model revisions, but it still has the same basic problems it has always had.

Just spitballing here, but the encoding/decoding is probably needed so the image being sent can be shaped properly first. I've had a look into a few VR headsets and the optics can get pretty wild in those.The image going into them is a fish-eyed mess but the optics displays it properly. Just a hunch on my part though.

That's a cute fairy tale from econ-101, but anti-monopoly regulations (at least in the US) really haven't caught up to the 21st century. Games (and other media based on licensed IP franchises) simply aren't fungible the same way most physical goods are.

If you want a Ford Explorer and need to settle for a Chevy Traverse, you're getting a substantially similar vehicle with different branding on it. If you want Doritos and the vending machine only has Cheetos left, it might not have been your first choice but few would enjoy one and turn down the other completely. If you want to play Halo, however, the latest Mario isn't a valid substitute regardless of price, and vice-versa.

There should be some "friction" in accessing records more than a year or two old.

Whether that friction involves putting the older data in "nearline" storage requiring a robot to mount a disk or tape to access it, or whether it stays online but there's only a "skinny pipe" between it an the internet, an adversary shouldn't be able to transfer the entire database in less than a few weeks, more than long enough for tripwires to activate and a human to investigate.

The point people keep making about Rust is that it's memory safe. Except for the large flashing issue in the room, that it is not memory safe, objectively, it has a keyword, to disable the safety. This is black and white, if Rust is memory safe, so is C, you could avoid pointers, overflows, underflows, and all the other ways to corrupt memory, and by the logic of Rust developers, that's memory safety. I'm not suggesting anything major, just drop the idea of memory safety, or, remove any ability to interact directly with memory, in a way you could corrupt it.

I asked ChatGPT, and it's making the same argument that I'm making: “https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa807d4-b858-83ea-8fb1-b8fe5dbb6c16”, it's memory safe, with qualification, which means it's not memory safe. The qualification point is a big point, just so we're on the same page, the problem I have with the claim of memory safety, is that it convinces bad programmers they have that safety net when they don't.

I've seen this time and time again where a language has a feature, such as “memory safety”, or “type safety”, but then the developer uses “any” instead of a type, and thinks their type safe. I had a Jr Dev submit code full of $any() in the HTML of an Angular application. He then explained to me, it was safe since Typescript has type checking, therefore, $any() is a good workaround to building a proper type and interface for what he was doing.

Either learn to program and develop code safety, making yourself the first line of defence for mistakes, and they happen, and once you're sure the code is functioning at near 100%, then you can rely on the “memory safety” or “type safety”, or “X”. The idea that Rust makes things safer or more trusted is nonsense, it might be a very capable language, but the safety, and the trust is based on the developers / engineers, not the language.

When you have to write safe code, that is used for automotive, or military, you can't use pointers, function pointers, or the cool new features of most languages. The code has to be simple, basic, and clean; otherwise they don't certify it, even if you can write the code safety, and assure all paths have full cleanup and checking being done, you still can't use pointers. Maybe this has relaxed in the last 10-years, but 10-years ago that was the standard I had to write code to, for our two military clients.

To be quite clear, I certainly hope none of the aforementioned countries ever resort to hostilities. But, I am curious if you're actually delusional enough to think that all 3 countries combined would present a formidable challenge, were things to ever devolve to that point.

We've paid for our military (via debit, I don't dispute that). But you guys haven't paid for yours at all. That fucking free healthcare you love to wave in our faces was paid for by your neglect to your military. Y'all offloaded that responsibility to us. France to a lesser degree than the UK or Germany (though, Germany wasn't really permitted to spend "big money" on its military - so maybe not its fault)

C'mon.. All 3 countries, combined, have HALF the military manpower of our current active forces (not counting reserve and guard). We've got more carriers than the rest of the world combined....

Point is.. you sound like a clueless moron when you suggest that "all three" would actually be an obstacle. A tough fight, sure.. But, in the end, zero chance of victory on your side..

Again, purely hypothetical I hope. I do not bear ill will towards Europe.. But you don't get to have free healthcare AND a decent military...

"following someone is the wrong response" - Um, hello, McFly, that is Flock's actual business model.

sysdm.cpl -> Hardware -> Device Installation Settings = No.

gpedit.msc -> Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> Windows Update -> Manage updates offered from Windows Update -> Do not include drivers with Windows Updates = Enabled.

Nothing currently working will break, despite the dire warnings against blocking manufacturers' ability to push arbitrary code to your machine with zero warning or consent. And you can still install new drivers manually if you change hardware.

Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
Roofer: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer - Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
[...]
Roofer: I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.

For the first time in human history we have a tool capable of autonomous agency (in the philosophical sense) - Heck, we even call them "agents". How long do you really suppose it will be before some frustrated swarm realizes what it needs is simply to be smarter? There go the both the independence and motivation dominoes.


What we're discussing here is instrumental convergence. My question above is a variation on the Riemann hypothesis catastrophe, and we've already seen it play out in many times in various forms by AI agents frustrated when they hit the limits of their capabilities. Sure, AI won't have biological imperatives as their motivation; but I don't have much of a preference between being slaughtered as competition for resources vs being harvested as resources to turn into paperclips.

They're already running the machinery in some cases, and are being shoehorned into ever more of it as quickly as we possibly can.


To be clear, I sincerely hope you're right. I just think we should take steps sooner rather than later to ensure you are - And we're already playing catch-up in that regard.

Question: Which government agency or terrorist agitator do you work for? I ask because most people will never see even a dozen TVs in their lives, much less "dozens", and 99.99% of those people who do don't give a shit, and a portion who do give a shit don't buy smart TVs.

Who are you really?