Live data from Hacker News

The metaverse is bullshit

outline.com

381–390 of 780 posts

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#381

Metaverse is not bullshit. It's a sign of desperation. Facebook has _nothing_ for the future. * Blue app is already on it's death bed. * Instagram is already seeing a massive decline in quality and engagement as its getting close to the end of its lifecycle. * They managed to survive Snapchat, but I think that made them think Instagram is too big to fail. Thus, they didn't go after TikTok. It was a mistake. * What's…

Facebook did have a budding developer ecosystem back in late 2000s with game developers and app developers using Facebook's platform to build their businesses. While it did have tons of privacy issues and data leaks, they could have built it into a sustainable ecosystem instead of making endless changes forcing developers to leave their ecosystem.

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#382
>Even when we get brain computer interfaces, I don't want to live in the embodied internet, because tactile sensation is a huge part of how we experience the world, and clicking a mouse feels better than making a finger gun in empty air.

This man is a moron.

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#383
post #17

As the article says, it doesn't make sense to have a virtual world that replicates the real world where there is only one "spacetime" entity, so to speak. The author is right, the metaverse is already here and it's called the internet. I disagree with the author that I can see a lot of value in improved social interactions and virtual workspaces in VR once the technology gets there. You can already see glimpses of it…

> And, it makes sense the VR/AR will be the medium to contain all other mediums. In the same way that e-books will make normal books completely obsolete? I doubt it.

Online text has made normal books completely obsolete for me, personally speaking.

I now buy books as a fancy way to donate to authors I like.

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#385
post #70
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the connection between NFTs and using real money to pay for Fortnite skins?

The idea of paying for an unique digital asset, even if it is just unique by social convention, would not be foreign to my kids. If you think about it, land ownership is also just a very well established social convention.

But land ownership gives you an actual, tangible benefit. You get exclusive use of the land. NFTs don't offer anything except bragging rights.

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#386
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say a sizable majority play Gran Turismo because it's a fun test of skill -- learning the controls of an intricate machine, the layout of the game's tracks, and achieving some form of mastery over it. And I'm also sure some people play it for the fantasy of doing car racing in a safe environment, which is a very dangerous, expensive, and inaccessible sport for a lot of people. So, perhaps I misread Tim Sweeney's…

I have two cars - a 1980 Datsun and a Fiat Spider. They're both a "test of skill". There's no reason it wouldn't be massively fun to play with lots of other cars on tracks or in all kinds of conditions in VR. "Fun test of skill" is the whole point. The original, like, Stephenson-ish "metaverse" was somewhere people fought with swords . This was getting directly at the idea that skill and challenge were more valuable…

Following up on the racing of infinite-speed cars, there was also an emphasis of optimizing your own user interface. That when every car could go at whatever speeds you want, the most important thing is how to interact with the car, and to control it. So it isn't just somebody else's code, but the skill and challenge of making your own code to suit your particular needs in an interface.

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#387
post #351

Metaverse is not bullshit. It's a sign of desperation. Facebook has _nothing_ for the future. * Blue app is already on it's death bed. * Instagram is already seeing a massive decline in quality and engagement as its getting close to the end of its lifecycle. * They managed to survive Snapchat, but I think that made them think Instagram is too big to fail. Thus, they didn't go after TikTok. It was a mistake. * What's…

> I personally think they should've acquired TikTok last year when TikTok was looking to be acquired by Microsoft. They probably would've extended their survival for another 10-ish years (lifecycle of a social media) Eh, IMO I don't think that would have worked - I suspect it would have raised too much anti-trust attention and not have been allowed. The bigger picture is that in the UK at least, 'Meta' owns most comm…

I agree, while (at least in younger people) messenger is declining, Instagram is basically the only platform you can contact everyone you known on. They want to be the major player in virtual reality communication, VR Chat for the masses. While incorporating large scale advertising into the pitch

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#388
post #244
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In just a few minutes, most people start treating those cartoons as real people without even realizing it. Ask anyone who's tried these things (they are already available: https://www.vspatial.com/ , https://www.oculus.com/blog/workrooms/ )

I don't know if this is a truism in the VR community, but the brain really does want to make consistent sense of things.

See also, Presence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_(virtual_reality)#Pr...

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#389
I'm looking into crypto for two months now. I think it really has potential.

I don't think, XR will be an integral part of it for some time.

Tokens (FT and NFT) that help us to distrubute and handle value in a transparent and decentralized matter are the USP here.

The rest is just extras on top.

Re: The metaverse is bullshit

#390
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gravity acts downwards so having a low center of gravity resists rolling forces. This works in reality as well with vehicles with a high center of gravity being at increased risk of rolling over those with a low center. Games often take this a step further as physics engines let you manually specify where the center of gravity is so you can make it artificially low compared with the actual mass distribution.

You haven't addressed the point. Rolling moment is proportional to the distance of the center of gravity from the ground, in either direction . If the center of gravity is exactly at ground level, the car cannot be rolled. Moving it lower, into the ground, increases the rolling tendency again - in the "wrong" direction.

This is not correct because gravity only acts downwards. This means a lower center of gravity will always be more stabilizing for a vehicle the right way up. As the car rolls the center of gravity is pushed outward. When it’s too high it quickly passes over the pivot point of the wheels and the car will roll as gravity is applying additional moment about the wheel. When it’s lower than the pivot point which is not usually physically possible it’s always resisting the roll until the vehicle is basically nearly upside down.

Draw it on a piece of paper if you need to convince yourself. This is an incredibly common trick to stabilise rigidbody physics simulated vehicles in games.

Edit: I took some time to setup OBS on my non-work machine and make a little video explaining what's going on (apologies for kids in the background and that for some reason my voice only comes out of the left channel): https://youtu.be/qvMbdzbaAMQ

Post reply on HN