3 ms·

Not a chance. I've been wrong about a lot of things tech, probably even most things, but this isn't something I think most people want. Metaverses have always

Not a chance. I've been wrong about a lot of things tech, probably even most things, but this isn't something I think most people want. Metaverses have always been niche. Most people don't like things attached to their head. Remember 3D TVs? But, perhaps you and they are right. For the first time in my life, I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no part in it.' Please don't take this as like, suicidal or anything, more maybe going off grid or moving to another country.

quickthrower2 5y ago
I think you soon won’t need much attached to your head. What about when the tech is a light as a pair of glasses - then contact lenses. Far fetched? In 1995, when mobile phones were for the rich, and internet for the geeks, tell people you will be required to own a mobile phone and an online account in order to be allowed in a shop. That’s what it is in Australia right now.
- silisili 5y ago
  Nah. As a teen I needed vision correction, and contacts were worse than glasses in the end. Dry eyes, solutions, cases, falling out. Glasses were nice enough, but I touched them so much it was constant cleaning. PRK solved all that. If this VR utopia ever will take hold, it will be with neural implants or something like it. Not with glasses, and not with contacts.
gitfan86 5y ago
You are right. Pride comes before a fall, and Zuck thinks he is better than Cook, Musk, Bezos, by building the multiverse he will restore his place as the greatest technologist of our time
- camdat 5y ago
  Do you not get sick of this being repeated constantly? Every year someone repeats that Facebooks doom is imminent, and every year their revenue and user base gets larger and larger When does this opinion just become pasé?
  - kyleee 5y ago
    Probably never, doomsday prophecy in various forms has been extremely popular probably for as long as humans have been able to communicate
  - gitfan86 5y ago
    This is actually the first time I have ever thought that facebook's future doesn't look great in comparison to other big tech.
Havoc 5y ago
>this isn't something I think most people want. I think it is. Not the current crap hardware, but bit further advanced it definitely has a place. The gamers are basically on board already, streamers would benefit too and porn has a big chunk in VR already. Sharp headset that can render text clearly would be huge.
acchow 5y ago
A common argument for why humanity has never encountered extra-terrestrial life is that any hyper advanced civilization likely moved into a virtual world. Do you believe this is unlikely and humanity is not headed in this direction?
- JohnFen 5y ago
  I'd never heard that, but off the top of my head, it seems exceedingly unlikely.
- silisili 5y ago
  I don't believe humanity or any civilization could survive. It's pure hedonism, really. How does reproduction even occur? And if everyone in the first world is plugged in, what keeps a third world nation from just taking everything? Or killing off the power grid? It would take a massive scale of agreement to even allow that to work. Outside of that, I am a big believer in, well I don't know the name for it. But you must experience sadness to feel happy. And bad times to realize good times. Anyone in a virtual world would likely never choose scenarios that cause such things. So there'd be no real true joy in this virtual life. Life is fleeting. From a health standpoint, I don't believe a human body could exist long in a pure virtual world(thinking of something like, The Matrix). Still people tend to get disease, blood clots, stroke, and more. And bones and muscle too weak to even walk when the grid goes down. Am I thinking about the scenario wrong? Sorry I don't have all(or any) of the answers to that question, mostly just rambling, but the thought makes me really sad.
  - TimJRobinson 5y ago
    > Anyone in a virtual world would likely never choose scenarios that cause such things. So there'd be no real true joy in this virtual life. Life is fleeting. Why not? I watch sad and scary movies all the time to experience those emotions. You can also have virtual struggle and striving to achieve virtual items that are to many people just as rewarding as real world items.
    - silisili 5y ago
newby 5y ago
> I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no part in it.' I feel like that about ever larger part of the whole tech world. I am torn - I can still muster a lot of techno-optimism when I think for example about possible benefits of advanced AIs for humanity. But than I imagine the world where the most advanced AIs are controlled by corporations like Google and Facebook... I have a bad feeling about this. I am trying to find some reasonable middle ground between becoming a luddite and just continuing like I do not see all those unforeseen negative impacts produced by the genie that was once called the IT revolution.
- bobmichael 5y ago
  Have you heard of solarpunk? It's a movement that arose out of a desire to balance techno-optimism with recognition of the dire need for technology that is more Earth- and human-friendly. You might resonate with the manifesto: https://www.re-des.org/a-solarpunk-manifesto/ https://www.re-des.org/a-solarpunk-manifesto/
cranesnakecode 5y ago
They aren't going after the people who have realized over-technicalized life is bad for humans. They're going after the kids who grow up in it and will take until their 30s to realize they've had depersonalization disorders their entire lives.
dbbk 5y ago
3D TVs were the clearest market signal that the market doesn't want this. It was not subtle. And yet everyone just acts like that didn't happen.
- yurishimo 5y ago
  Did 3D TVs ever get to sub $1k? I think remember my dad bought one almost a decade ago and I’m sure he paid way more than that for a Sony 3D tv. I don’t know that we can outright dismiss anything based on 3D TVs not taking off. I’m certainly no fan of Facebook attempting to own this space, but to outright dismiss the whole concept because of the poor sales for 3D TVs seems naïve IMO.
  - silisili 5y ago
    Price has never been a limiting factor in TVs. People will throw down thousands each year for the big new 8k. Or projectors. 3D tvs just weren't popular because people didn't like them. It was the first 'major' TV advancement I ever watched fall on its face, and get swept under the rug like it never existed. I'm not sure the general public at large will like VR, either. It's disorienting. And if strip mall Lasik wasn't enough to tell, we don't like wearing things on our face. That will -never- change. I remember going to a real 3d movie as a kid, but I forget where. Some movie studio park, probably. It was only 10 or so minutes of Hitchcock's 'The Birds', but wow was it amazing. Too amazing. I remember feeling real fear to where I'd take the glasses off for a few seconds, people were screaming, many took off their glasses before it was over. Not sure if this relates to the metaverse, just sharing an anecdote.
    - dbbk 5y ago
      The reasons 3D TVs failed were the same reasons VR will fail. It's not a question of price, in my opinion, it's a question of friction. People do not want to put things on their head, which requires their full attention and doesn't allow them to look away.

quickthrower2 5y ago

I think you soon won’t need much attached to your head. What about when the tech is a light as a pair of glasses - then contact lenses. Far fetched? In 1995, when mobile phones were for the rich, and internet for the geeks, tell people you will be required to own a mobile phone and an online account in order to be allowed in a shop. That’s what it is in Australia right now.

silisili 5y ago
Nah. As a teen I needed vision correction, and contacts were worse than glasses in the end. Dry eyes, solutions, cases, falling out. Glasses were nice enough, but I touched them so much it was constant cleaning. PRK solved all that. If this VR utopia ever will take hold, it will be with neural implants or something like it. Not with glasses, and not with contacts.

gitfan86 5y ago

You are right. Pride comes before a fall, and Zuck thinks he is better than Cook, Musk, Bezos, by building the multiverse he will restore his place as the greatest technologist of our time

camdat 5y ago
Do you not get sick of this being repeated constantly? Every year someone repeats that Facebooks doom is imminent, and every year their revenue and user base gets larger and larger When does this opinion just become pasé?
- kyleee 5y ago
  Probably never, doomsday prophecy in various forms has been extremely popular probably for as long as humans have been able to communicate
- gitfan86 5y ago
  This is actually the first time I have ever thought that facebook's future doesn't look great in comparison to other big tech.

Havoc 5y ago

>this isn't something I think most people want. I think it is. Not the current crap hardware, but bit further advanced it definitely has a place. The gamers are basically on board already, streamers would benefit too and porn has a big chunk in VR already. Sharp headset that can render text clearly would be huge.

acchow 5y ago

A common argument for why humanity has never encountered extra-terrestrial life is that any hyper advanced civilization likely moved into a virtual world. Do you believe this is unlikely and humanity is not headed in this direction?

JohnFen 5y ago
I'd never heard that, but off the top of my head, it seems exceedingly unlikely.
silisili 5y ago
I don't believe humanity or any civilization could survive. It's pure hedonism, really. How does reproduction even occur? And if everyone in the first world is plugged in, what keeps a third world nation from just taking everything? Or killing off the power grid? It would take a massive scale of agreement to even allow that to work. Outside of that, I am a big believer in, well I don't know the name for it. But you must experience sadness to feel happy. And bad times to realize good times. Anyone in a virtual world would likely never choose scenarios that cause such things. So there'd be no real true joy in this virtual life. Life is fleeting. From a health standpoint, I don't believe a human body could exist long in a pure virtual world(thinking of something like, The Matrix). Still people tend to get disease, blood clots, stroke, and more. And bones and muscle too weak to even walk when the grid goes down. Am I thinking about the scenario wrong? Sorry I don't have all(or any) of the answers to that question, mostly just rambling, but the thought makes me really sad.
- TimJRobinson 5y ago
  > Anyone in a virtual world would likely never choose scenarios that cause such things. So there'd be no real true joy in this virtual life. Life is fleeting. Why not? I watch sad and scary movies all the time to experience those emotions. You can also have virtual struggle and striving to achieve virtual items that are to many people just as rewarding as real world items.
  - silisili 5y ago

newby 5y ago

> I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no part in it.' I feel like that about ever larger part of the whole tech world. I am torn - I can still muster a lot of techno-optimism when I think for example about possible benefits of advanced AIs for humanity. But than I imagine the world where the most advanced AIs are controlled by corporations like Google and Facebook... I have a bad feeling about this. I am trying to find some reasonable middle ground between becoming a luddite and just continuing like I do not see all those unforeseen negative impacts produced by the genie that was once called the IT revolution.

bobmichael 5y ago
Have you heard of solarpunk? It's a movement that arose out of a desire to balance techno-optimism with recognition of the dire need for technology that is more Earth- and human-friendly. You might resonate with the manifesto: https://www.re-des.org/a-solarpunk-manifesto/ https://www.re-des.org/a-solarpunk-manifesto/

cranesnakecode 5y ago

They aren't going after the people who have realized over-technicalized life is bad for humans. They're going after the kids who grow up in it and will take until their 30s to realize they've had depersonalization disorders their entire lives.

dbbk 5y ago

3D TVs were the clearest market signal that the market doesn't want this. It was not subtle. And yet everyone just acts like that didn't happen.

yurishimo 5y ago
Did 3D TVs ever get to sub $1k? I think remember my dad bought one almost a decade ago and I’m sure he paid way more than that for a Sony 3D tv. I don’t know that we can outright dismiss anything based on 3D TVs not taking off. I’m certainly no fan of Facebook attempting to own this space, but to outright dismiss the whole concept because of the poor sales for 3D TVs seems naïve IMO.
- silisili 5y ago
  Price has never been a limiting factor in TVs. People will throw down thousands each year for the big new 8k. Or projectors. 3D tvs just weren't popular because people didn't like them. It was the first 'major' TV advancement I ever watched fall on its face, and get swept under the rug like it never existed. I'm not sure the general public at large will like VR, either. It's disorienting. And if strip mall Lasik wasn't enough to tell, we don't like wearing things on our face. That will -never- change. I remember going to a real 3d movie as a kid, but I forget where. Some movie studio park, probably. It was only 10 or so minutes of Hitchcock's 'The Birds', but wow was it amazing. Too amazing. I remember feeling real fear to where I'd take the glasses off for a few seconds, people were screaming, many took off their glasses before it was over. Not sure if this relates to the metaverse, just sharing an anecdote.
  - dbbk 5y ago
    The reasons 3D TVs failed were the same reasons VR will fail. It's not a question of price, in my opinion, it's a question of friction. People do not want to put things on their head, which requires their full attention and doesn't allow them to look away.