8 ms·

I'm of the age that I remember getting sucked in to the Second Life hype. MMORPGs were also becoming popular, and there was this narrative that "virtual worlds"

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• sofard 5y ago
  I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of all this"
  • patwolf 5y ago
    I'll gladly be part of a movement to opt out of this. I tend to be very selective about technologies I let into my life. My wife hasn't always shared my view, but the metaverse she agreed doesn't need to be part of our lives. I hope the bifurcation is real because that will make it easier to keep the metaverse separate from the real world.
  • handrous 5y ago
    > on this path to black mirror dystopia A bunch of episodes of Black Mirror aren't really even about the future. They're criticism of things right now (or, rather, when the episodes were made).
    • thaumasiotes 5y ago
      It seems safe to extend this comment to all episodes of every TV show.
      • earleybird 5y ago
        While that may be generally true I'm inclined to think that Black Mirror brought the perspective into sharp relief.
    • fragmede 5y ago
      As soon as good AR glasses come out though, Black Mirror's an instruction manual on what app to write.
    • servytor 5y ago
      I took a course in university on sci-fi and the professor said that all science fiction was a reflection of the moment it was written, and had almost nothing to do with prognosticating.
      • jimmygrapes 5y ago
        This is partially why many people prefer the term "speculative fiction" over "science fiction"
      • batekush 5y ago
        Ursula K LeGuin’s introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness, 1976 https://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9780441007318 https://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9780441007318 “The weather bureau will tell you what next Tuesday will be like, and the Rand Corporation will tell you what the twenty-first century will be like. I don’t recommend that you turn to the writers of fiction for such information. It’s none of their business. All they’re trying to do is tell you what they’re like, and what you’re like—what’s going on—what the weather is now, today, this moment, the rain, the sunlight, look! Open your eyes; listen, listen. That is what the novelists say. But they don’t tell you what you will see and hear. All they can tell you is what they have seen and heard, in their time in this world, a third of it spent in sleep and dreaming, another third of it spent in telling lies.”
  • moolcool 5y ago
    It's not like we're not culturally flirting with that already. Film photography and vinyl have both seen massive resurgences lately.
    • derwiki 5y ago
      Wonder if the same will hold for books?
      • ghaff 5y ago
        Ebooks never gained the completely dominant position that digital photography and music did. And even those among us who prefer ebooks for fiction consisting of flowing text still prefer printed books for a lot of more reference-oriented or "coffee table" books.
        • foobiekr 5y ago
          As someone who went all-in on ebooks for 10+Y, having bought a kindle immediately and used it extensively, I've gone back to books. The kindle experience just isn't as good and it took me a long time to simply accept that.
          • ghaff 5y ago
            I like the Kindle especially for travel. Lighting in hotel rooms/planes often is less than ideal and it's great to not be forced to choose a book I'm going to be in the mood to read on a given trip. But, for the most part, I don't like cookbooks and other essentially reference books on Kindle/iPad. (I still buy them sometimes but mostly because I got some sort of $1/$2 deal.)
            • atlasunshrugged 5y ago
              Yeah, kindle is only for travel and for when I'm living abroad in places where I just can't get access to non-mass market paperbacks and so need to order from the e-book store
  • skybrian 5y ago
    I think the limit was reached with the backlash against Google Glass. Having a camera on your face was a bridge too far. Phones you can put away. Some people like VR but they use it at home. On the other hand, earbuds and smart watches haven't had the same issues.
    • monodeldiablo 5y ago
      Boiling frogs, man. Google Glass was just too sudden a change. Another decade of eroding our collective sense of privacy and boundaries means it might be more successful now than it was back when we still had some expectation of personal privacy.
    • toast0 5y ago
      I think the backlash against Google Glass might have subsided if it had been a useful device that was widely available. (Of course, the wide release version was on watches) As it was, wearing a Google Glass was making several statements: I have acccess to this special thing; I'm going to wear this mostly useless object in a highly visible location on my body; and if actually using it in public, I don't care that having a one-sided conversation with a computer annoys those around me (kind of like talking on a phone/bluetooth headset, but worse). Maybe the camera was the anchor for the issue, but I don't think it was the real issue; I don't recall seeing articles about people being shunned for wearing the Snapchat camera glasses.
      • ghaff 5y ago
        I tend to agree. If/when we have AR glasses that are reasonably priced and genuinely useful, I'm inclined to think they'll be broadly accepted. Yes, there will be people including some of the people reading this who will be upset about the panopticon-like invasion of privacy associated with always-on cameras everywhere. But they'll be largely ignored just as they are today with respect to video/photos being just a smartphone in the pocket away. It's easy to forget that less than 20 years ago taking a photo, much less a video, was a pretty deliberate act involving equipment that most people didn't routinely carry with them.
      • fragmede 5y ago
  • nefitty 5y ago
    How many video game developers rarely play video games? I bet most game devs don't count gaming amongst their defining interests. There seems to be a majority swath of humans who get hooked on unproductive hobbies. Drugs, partying, social media, video games. I'm talking HOOKED, dreams framed by the TikTok UI, taking work off to watch a Counterstrike tournament, weeks of back-to-back hangovers. I mean, I've been there. I too hear the lull of chemical dissociation. What I'm wondering is, what happens as that lullaby gets louder and brighter and more attractive, in sync with people working less and less as automation forms a mechanical sheen on all economic activity? I'll just toss this one I caught as I wrote that: You think the opioid epidemic is bad? Is it better or worse for us that our addictions can't annihilate us in an instant? How many people are in their rooms right now, alone, entangled in expensive parasocial relationships and expensive video game habits? What if people aren't stealing and robbing shit for drugs anymore, but are doing it to donate to their favorite streamer, or buy the new Supreme hoodie or buy a PS5?
    • foobiekr 5y ago
      I mostly agree with this, but I think it's more subtle. Every game developer I've ever known, which is a good number, was a hard core gamer who loved games. Most of them really reduced it as they get older - not just because as you get older you just don't have the time or energy, but because doing something for work just kind of ruins it for most people. That last bit is very common: my wife is a professional artist and doing that as her profession has just about ruined her interest in painting and drawing despite doing it for a lifetime. I was a hobby coder my entire life until mid-way through my career. Now although I sometimes do short stints, I gotta say, it is kind of ruined for me. So, sure, you are probably right, but probably for the wrong reasons. As for "unproductive hobbies" the reality is that all hobbies are basically unproductive. The stained glass artists I know struggle to give away their output because there's only so much anyone around them wants, but their hobby is to produce it. Ditto the painters, woodworkers, etc. Yes, these can give you practice with useful skills, but they're still basically generating a waste product, and if you try selling it, on average, you're just trying to mitigate your losses, piece work is almost never financially sound. This is all to say that one shouldn't view hobbies as "productive" or not, you should view them as providing benefits not directly related to the activity. Hiking, running, cycling, weightlifting - these are all "unproductive" but they are useful practices. Games aren't devoid of value in this sense - hand eye coordination, rapid tactical thinking, etc. are all skills you develop and maintain with practice. That said, I'm 100% on board with you about the parasocial relationship thing, but to note the obvious, the real elephant in that particular room is social networking in all of its guises. Video games aren't even close, and, if anything, are probably closer to the "real relationship" end of the spectrum than any other online endeavor. I know many gamer groups who have transitioned to real life on multiple dimensions, far more than "hey these are the people i interacted with on Twitter" and other purely ephemeral constructs.
  • jollybean 5y ago
    "but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. " Just don't use it.
  • imbnwa 5y ago
    So the Lo-Techs in Johnny Mnemonic?
  • jareklupinski 5y ago
    anecdotal, but I went to a concert recently and was amazed/thrilled to see maybe five or ten isolated instances of someone pulling out their phone to take a few second clip for insta or snapchat or whatever 5-ish years ago it would be common to see 25-45% of the crowd with their phones up and out recording almost the entire show
  • Mezzie 5y ago
    I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans from the equation, we'll see a group of people who take parts of tech they like (such as systems thinking) and focus it on human improvement instead of external tech. Think genetically engineered humans vs. cyborgs; there will be a focus on holistic 'working with' human impulses and neurology instead of 'what can the tech accomplish'? That'd be my guess.
    • thejackgoode 5y ago
      Regarding the zeitgeist change: don’t you think that expectation windows for results based on success of disrupting markets by tech have shrunk to a point where it’s not possible for a more long term and complex projects (biology being one of them) to attract enough talent? I feel like such changes are only possible based on big crises
      • Mezzie 5y ago
        I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the same way we saw a boom in devs in the 90s so the talent base will expand a LOT. The expectation windows are set by investors, and I think biology has a good shot at being able to get resources/funding without having to rely too heavily on VCs or investors (think government and academic funding). Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements. I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue). The main problem I think IS that we're too short sighted currently, and we'll have to correct that, so I do think long-term projects will become easier in the early 2030s.
        • 5y ago
  • distrill 5y ago
    This sounds sort of like the setting of Dune.
  • DougN7 5y ago
    Tongue-in-cheek but check out The Icelandverse on YouTube :)
  • post_from_work 5y ago
    I'm totally ok with starting the Butlerian Jihad a few millennia early. https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad
  • binkHN 5y ago
    I opted out of this a long time ago by never creating a Facebook account.
  • hammock 5y ago
    >there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it Degen?
• jayd16 5y ago
  What makes the difference in my mind is that AR technology is gaining steam. There's a chance that we'll have a new desire to link the spatial, physical world to spatial and virtual interactions. The push to own the metaverse seems like a land grand.
  • abletonlive 5y ago
    really? I have yet to seen anybody that actually cares about AR at all in my day to day interactions
    • NineStarPoint 5y ago
      Quite a few people interested in the circles I walk in, but pretty much everyone also agrees that the technology just isn't particularly close to viable yet (cost is high, general usability is low). And that's ignoring the google-glass style problems there would be with general use.
      • ghaff 5y ago
        There are both technology and social aspects. The technology has to be at the point where you can casually wear fashionable glasses which overlay easily readable information. And other people would need to be OK with the fact that people are wearing said glasses that put them on candid camera at all times.
    • jayd16 5y ago
      Microsoft is pushing Hololens dev, Meta is pushing AR features into the Quest, Snap just put out some AR spectacles. There's development interest but the consumer devices aren't quite ready yet so there's no real market quite yet.
  • bmitc 5y ago
    Hasn’t VR been gaining steam for a while now, as in, never coming around? All I see are companies massively pushing for it, but I don’t see any real take up. Anything that I’ve seen seems like a gimmick and not something that will actually stick or resonate with people.
• shostack 5y ago
  Expense is coming down, and form factors and weight are rapidly shrinking while performance of displays improves. Whatever gripes you have about the space, it is hard to deny the rapid evolution we're seeing due to the influx of investment.
• focusedone 5y ago
  Anyone remember LambdaMoo? This has all happened before. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. I think focusing on stupid looking headsets misses the author's point. He's looking toward a decentralization of thought aggregation and how that will impact the 'real world'. Maybe it'll be similar when cable happened and we all stopped watching the same three channels?
• likpok 5y ago
  Good VR headsets are cheaper than computers today and cheaper than computers were back when Second Life was getting started. People almost universally own smartphones which can support a LOT of additional activity. That's not to say that the metaverse will take off (I think it still lacks a compelling use case), but many of the parameters have changed.
• PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > Universities and companies paid stupid amounts of money for digital real estate. Wired ran profiles of Second Life speculators who got rich in the bubble. A lot of dumb things happened in the past, especially with companies that tried to substitute virtual scarcity speculation for an actual business model. It's easy to mock them for how ridiculous it all is, but I don't see any evidence that Meta is charging down a path of repeating all of the failed business models of years past. I think a lot of the old timers who have seen hype cycles of past businesses are projecting too much of those old, failed businesses on to this new wave of activities. Everyone is so busy speculating that Meta is going to fail that it's hard to actually understand what they're doing or what their business model really is. Regardless, it's trivial to see that video games and VR of 2021 are nothing like the Second Life of almost two decades prior. Back then, video games and even computer-based entertainment were a niche hobby. Today, video games are everywhere, VR is cheap, and everyone is already attached to their phones 24/7. I'm interested to see where this goes.
  • fragmede 5y ago
    Roblox seems to be doing alright with virtual scarcity, with designer avatar accessories going for $15,000 in some cases. (Roblox takes at 30% cut of the transaction.) I'm not exactly sure why they're successful with it, but just because Blizzard failed at a real life auction house doesn't mean everyone failed at it.