411
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
411 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4264 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
its like they have too much money and they're burning it away on bad ideas. Imagine how much public housing that money could have built.
I mean, you do understand that this money isn’t just vanishing right? It’s being spent on people, manufacturing, materials. It doesn’t just vanish into nothing.
yeah it gets distributed in the economy and gets absorbed in the system. at least it's not being hoarded or funneled outside the country.
the other poster is just parroting things they do not understand.
Its also drawing real resources away from other things. The real estate used on these luxury failures had other potential buyers and raises costs across the board as it competes for chip factory space, marketing, etc.
If the money was taxed out of circulation it actually does essentially vanish, increasing the value of every remaining dollar if the state budget remains unchanged - its the easiest way to reduce inflation.
These big corporations with lots of money do affect everyone when they make big stupid decisions - resources get misallocated and costs go up. Money doesn't exist in a void, the things people do with it have real world effects.
They have the best VR headset in the market. The only problem is that it's also mining all your data.
Do they? I thought it was just the cheapest.
It's the best for normal users (price vs performance), not for VR pros or the best experience possible.
Mandatory: fuck Facebook / Meta
That's because they're losing billions selling it. If it cost what it actually took to produce it wouldn't be the best on the market anymore, they're trying to bully out players who can't afford to lose billions for years until they're in total control.
Is it the cheapest? I don't follow VR much anymore.
I agree being the best is subjective, but the UX is impeccable.
Pull out the helmet, setup the guardian and you can play pretty much anywhere.
Ok, so it sounds like you put a lot of value on a standalone experience. So something like a Switch or phone for gaming instead of a gaming PC.
That seems to be the area they win at. They don't have the best image, refresh rate, or tracking accuracy, but they are easy to get going with, and it's inexpensive relative to other options.
To me, the biggest strength is how small the headset is and the fact that you don't need to dedicate a room to VR with sensors.
I put a lot of value on how easy it is to setup. When VR first started, I had a dedicated 7x7 space with a pulley system so that the wires wouldn't get in the way. My computer had to be near as well.
If I had a mansion, I would definitely use a better headset, but if we want a better VR adoption, then it needs to be accessible to as many people as possible.
I doubt public housing would have made a fantastic return either.
If all you care about is money, then yeah sure. If you actually give a shit about humanity the return would be absolutely immense for society.
Think about it longer term... All the people struggling at the bottom now have secure housing. More money is free for nutrition, hygiene, they can get better jobs or afford schooling... Trades or higher education. More people have a chance to escape poverty and contribute production, get more money to spend, more money gets out into local economies. So and so forth. It's a good idea.
They shouldn't have that amount of disposable income in the first place, and a good portion should have been tax money. If that money were invested in public housing the return would be massive.
Really? You don't think that building solid foundations for people to get on their feet and start making more money themselves, money that they can turn around and spend on more products, would have a fantastic return? The benefit for the economy would be immense but corporations can't write that into their spreadsheets changing their bottom line so it "doesn't count"