No one wants to wear a PC on their faces. The few who did wanted that for games but Zuck wanted a social VR platform, not a third-rate gaming console. Games couldn't even bring in the numbers needed to pivot anyone to social so they're giving up.
This has yet to be determined! Because no VR headset so far has actually been a proper PC. You can't develop on them. You can't just install whatever TF you want. You have to use their app store and getting developer mode enabled doesn't even give you root on the device.
A more accurate statement would be, "No one wants to wear a locked-down, extremely limited-use phone on their faces."
When the Steam Frame comes out, then we'll see how much of a difference having full control over your VR hardware can make. It runs SteamOS and you can install whatever you want. It's a complete Linux distro! An actual PC on your face.
Putting Linux on a headset will do nothing to change that the average person wants no part of one on their face. You can develop for the Vision Pro inside the Vision Pro today, and few people care.
Maybe a game library as large as Steam's will make it a little more appealing, but unlikely. The Quest has a good sized library and seems to have saturated the market.
Godot on the Quest allows you to develop on the device which is at least cool even if it makes little sense. You’d see the virtual world around you adapt to the changes in the editor. That was one on the reasons I bought it, even if I never used it in the end
Not really. Workers produce the thing the company sells. Those workers are mostly trapped so they deal with whatever nonsense management is up to. Management, mostly useless, maintains its control and viability by asserting that workers need policing and they're the ones to do it. If the policing is relatively easy with WFH, they'll do that. If it's much harder, or less demonstrative of their fake value, screw that, they'll just pass that burden on to workers with RTO mandates.
It took Apple realizing that putting fashion so far out ahead of function on Vision Pro was costing it usage to see the dual strap. The ergonomics of the first strap were dog shit, and everyone, certainly Apple, knew years before Vision Pro launched that a dual strap was the only way to make longer sessions viable. But a dual strap was also uglier, and Vision Pro already had acceptability problems.
Look at the marketing materials for Vision Pro using the single strap. Next, look at the marketing materials with the dual strap. Which one of those would sell better into an office context where at least half the population spends considerable time fixing their hair. Which one looks slightly futuristic and which looks like a CPAP headset.
"How it looks" led Apple to ship a deficient strap, one that made the device actually hurt to use. And how it looks is why Apple stuck with that garbage strap for 18 months despite knowing from extensive user research that the dual strap was superior ergonomically, and despite having already done the R&D for the dual strap.
It was only when Apple had mostly given up on Vision Pro, understanding that the user base wasn't going to hockey stick, that fashion was already a complete failure, that they began offering the sillier looking but infinitely more functional dual strap. After 18 months, all Apple had was its existing user base, selling only a few thousand devices a month, so it shifted from growth to sustaining and that's what the dual strap and M5 logic board swap was for, holding onto the few users it has until it could figure out how or if to proceed with the product line.
That's not the case with Apple's headphones. That strap could easily be a lot higher quality without being a lot less fashionable.
ML based word or phrase editing is hardly a problem any more than pre-AI spellcheckers were. AI sentence and paragraph manufacturing is a problem and everyone knows the difference between that slop and a spellchecker. No one cares if your editor does inline spellchecking or even word autocomplete. What they care about is slop and word at a time spelling or phrase grammar checking are harmless.
Wrong. B Corp boards are legally protected from lawsuits if they reject the highest bid when they put the company up for sale. In a C Corp, once the board puts the company on the auction block, not taking the highest bid, even from a company that's diametrically opposed to the goals of the C Corp, opens the board up to lawsuits from shareholders pissed about not getting the maximal return. Suggesting this is no difference shows a lack of understanding of the legal regime these types of corporations operate under.
B Corps allow the board to weigh things besides shareholder value. That's a meaningful distinction.
The idea is that shareholder primacy isn't compatible with everything every corporation wants to do, so having a board that's protected from lawsuits when they put things above shareholders is a useful thing and B Corps offer that.
The board can, for example, reject a "superior" takeover bid without fear of lawsuits from shareholders pissed off they didn't get the biggest payday available. A typical C Corp's board MUST take the highest offer, and not doing so WILL get them sued. That means if GoodGuy B Corp is about to be taken over by BadGuy Inc., the GoodGuy board can say "No, they're not compatible with the public benefit mission we incorporated under so we're not going to accept their offer." That's actually really useful.
No GoodGuy B Corp would still need to fear lawsuits in that situation and PBC or not they would be able rejecting that decision. If they get sued there is a good chance they can defend the decision.
99% of users don't even know they're being protected. There's no promise except "we work to make browsing safer" and cutting even 5% of malicious sites from a user's experience is an unmitigated win for that user at the low false positive rate Safe Browsing offers.
that doesn't make a difference, they're still being protected. 99% of users don't know that defender saved their lives multiple times from being destroyed either. Same with spam filters, app store rejections,etc..
I don't get why there is such a lack of critical thinking on this topic here.
This is the way. Turning off features only to unclutter a menu is silly and I can't believe there's not more pushback than your post here. userChrome.css exists for this exact reason, mucking about in UI without mucking about in feature machinery. I guess a text file and some CSS is just too hard many HN users.
reply