I underestimated your disagreement with the metaverse motivation, taking it as "I don't get it" versus "I don't think that's true/right/good/worthwhile/honest/w

I underestimated your disagreement with the metaverse motivation, taking it as "I don't get it" versus "I don't think that's true/right/good/worthwhile/honest/whatever". I wouldn't take your skepticism as uncharitable as much as realistic. If a company is trying to apply some abstract theory to solve a problem, they might hire a theoretician to work on it. They'll say "We are advancing X theory to solve Y problem for our customers". Well, the "we" in there is one dude and his motivation certainly isn't Y. He'd be working on X regardless. Y is just the reason he's getting paid. That's not exactly what's going on here, just sayin distorted motivations aren't that rare or even really that nefarious. On the not-newness, I think that's true, too. You can justify it by saying that a metaverse will have the same problems in different proportions. This would justify approaches with tradeoffs that wouldn't make sense in other situations. It looks like it's optimizing for a system with high concurrency, weak coordination and on one platform. So like Erlang at Ericsson but more programmers, or like the internet but less independent. Thank you for sharing the Fortress example!