4 ms·
I understand. I read Snow Crash. Besides the Metaverse there was also a nuclear powered dog. My point is this -- by allusion to some concept with which an inve
by woopsn 2y ago
I understand. I read Snow Crash. Besides the Metaverse there was also a nuclear powered dog.
My point is this -- by allusion to some concept with which an inventor wishes to form an association in the consumer's mind, their products are to be thought of as something different than they are, something too grand for plain language. This doesn't serve anyone but the inventor.
The "Internet with head-mounted display" is actually pretty cool technology, I'm not against it. My concern is that it shouldn't be sold or even referred to as an alternate form of reality. For the benefit of product sales, or else the egos of certain technologists, language becomes muddied and the very idea about what makes someone "a person" is bastardized. I think this is wrong and very short sighted.
- wvenable 2y agoIf you use a term like "Virtual Reality" to describe things it eventually just becomes what people describe. Everybody knows what a VR headset is now. Everyone knows what VR is now. That is VR. The allusion is completely gone. It's like describing snow to someone who has never seen it. No matter what they allusions they have about snow before they see it, once they've seen it, they know that is snow. And everyone they talk to will have the same meaning. Same with Augmented reality, mixed reality, whatever. Once it becomes mainstream one of these terms will stick and that's just what it will be. Or it'll be so ingrained in the experience that we no longer even use a separate term to describe it.
- baby 2y agoWhat is your experience with VR? Have you been to the movies in VR? Or played board games with other players? Have you done social chat applications?
- woopsn 2y agoMostly games on Oculus. I haven't played online socially, just with friends IRL - one has a really sweet room all set up for VR. Also back in the 90s-00s, on the more primitive arcade systems. I haven't looked at the "metaverse" yet. It's not like I'm against fun, and if there is more emphasis in the "metaverse" on meaningful social connection, that's good. Games and activities that get you moving around are also a very positive development. Wii was one of my favorite consoles (but was hardly immersive). My brother is a former pilot and sprung for a full setup so he could play aviation sims. I haven't done a movie yet. As I said I have nothing against headsets or immersive digital experiences. I do think in this day and age it's worth being more protective of the word "reality", compared to the 90s. Not just in a political sense. The core business of Facebook is advertising and data brokering. I know I might sound like a quack but they really do want to control perception of reality and for us to stare at their screen for as long as possible. Partly because there are ads there, and partly because as we do they stare back at us and take measurements. So that's why I don't accept their "Reality Lab", "The Metaverse", etc. marketing language, and to the extent they control VR it is not VR. They don't want to build the metaverse a la Snow Crash, it will be more like the social -> news feed -> analytica history, plus raking app developers.