AdmiralWackbar t1_j17t5df wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:10 AM

I have zero interest, like 99% of the people out there

faste30 t1_j18m8g9 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:57 PM

Its basically "Second Life" but in VR. Its going to be something people try once, move on, and all that is left is porn. And if Meta doesnt allow one person using a goat avatar to fuck another person in a dragon avatar then its basically DoA.

ballrus_walsack t1_j18xd4f wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:21 PM

You need to be in the meta executive meetings

faste30 t1_j190ljk wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:43 PM

"Listen, Mark, if people cant license Bad Dragon dicks for their avatars then we are going to lose 50% of our long-term user base. Also, the customization functions for the user-created sex dungeons are too limiting."

Be like that show from Rob McElhenney or whatever but up to 11 with users making dicks.

SpaceEngie t1_j19x2nx wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:14 PM

Who are You, Who are so Wise in the Ways of Science?

piei_lighioana t1_j192lby wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:56 PM

Maybe... just maybe ... these "tech giants" that are so glorified are not exactly tech giants... just utter losers who have teams of people running damage control on anything they do in order to make them look smart.

Maybe it's time we got rid of the whole spiel and stopped glorifying trash.

faste30 t1_j196bos wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:21 PM

Oh Im def game for "Hes rich, he must know what he is doing" and lionizing nerds to come to an end.

Silicon Valley (the show) is like Idiocracy, Mike Judge might have been shooting for absurdity but reality caught up with him.

Hobear t1_j18ivnz wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:29 PM

Dude I like VR and I have no use for this either. FB just living in a fantasy.

dewayneestes t1_j19bvbl wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:57 PM

There’s lots of great VR development happening outside of META, this is the equivalent of shopping malls dying while the economy is chugging along. People don’t need your sanitized, monetized, antiseptic version of the future to have fun.

Friendlyattwelve t1_j19a5bj wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:46 PM

I harbor a hope that when I am too feeble I can access a new adventure there , for at least some of the time .

Fritzschmied t1_j18k8oo wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:41 PM

You really think that may people are interested in. That would still be around 70million interested people and the last news was that there were a big metaverse party in decentraland and there were like 6 users in total.

AdmiralWackbar t1_j18kuy1 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:46 PM

70 million is like 40% of all VR owners

Fritzschmied t1_j18l9bf wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:49 PM

Yeah exactly never in this word do 40% use the metaverse. I would even go as far as saying that not even 40% of vr owners still use vr. For example I have a PSVR and it’s a really long time since I used it because I recognized that vr is just not a enjoyable way to play for me.

faste30 t1_j18mjhq wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:00 PM

Same, I never got anything good but did manage to score one of those google headsets and had a big, HD android phone in it. It worked really well, but I just didnt see the purpose beyond "this is kind of a cool exercise."

I even gave the idea of having the screen close to make a theater affect for being on planes (there was an app that would play videos in a theater setting, but the goggles just got annoying after 10 minutes.

Now Im back to gaming in front of a screen and using an ipad pro propped up on the drinks tray on planes like normal. Call me when its a holodeck.

aVRAddict t1_j1a946z wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:33 PM

You tried the shittiest form of VR and wrote it off? That's really dumb

shrlytmpl t1_j1940mz wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:06 PM

Phone VR is the very reason most people think VR is just a fad. It was so bad. My dad said the same thing you did till he visited and tried my OG Vive, then immediately changed his tune to "I want one". I'd wait for high res oled headsets to come out, though, that's what's really going to make it great.

Unexpected_Cranberry t1_j19bdgt wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:54 PM

I don't know. I've tried one of the never Occuluses, and while it was kind of cool to try out for 20 minutes in the long run for me it's just an annoying way to play games. I could see the remote meeting bit that Zuckerberg has been talking about lately be slightly useful though for some meetings. The big thing I think will be AR, if they manage to make it high quality and fit inside something with a similar weight and size as a pair of regular glasses. I could see it replacing regular screens and being fairly nice if done right and in a way that doesn't strain the eyes too much. But VR... No.

aVRAddict t1_j1a9bw3 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:35 PM

You sound like you don't know anything about the tech or what's good. You literally tried it for 20 minutes.

Unexpected_Cranberry t1_j1h6yn8 wrote on December 24, 2022 at 8:49 AM

Could be. I'm old enough now that I tend to be more sceptical of new stuff. As in just because it's new and kind of cool I'm not all in any more. Though I've been sceptical to VR for the last 20 years.

Holodeck VR would be cool. Or again, AR where the goggles are light weight and you can actually move around an environment.

But VR in the living room? I don't see that taking off outside of enthusiasts.

It's like 3D movies. Nobody cared. Most people I know preferred non-3D over having to wear anything on their face. And those glasses were just light plastic for the most part.

You'd also need to be able to get the sound through external speakers for social gaming/movie watching. No one wants to sit on the couch with friends and family and have to wear headphones and possibly use voice chat with someone right next to you.

shrlytmpl t1_j19d4us wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:05 PM

I'm def looking forward to proper AR, but everything you said could and does apply to VR. If they shrink it (which they're working on) you can already work within VR screens, watch movies, etc. To be honest, I see more use for VR than AR. We'll see what the future holds, but I don't see people shelling out $1k like they do with phones just so they can see their notifications floating in mid air. I'll probably eat those words, though.

VR is def not going to be for everyone, just like consoles or PCs aren't for everyone, or games in general. And while I can say that I'm having a blast with it, that doesn't really mean much. I think a better argument is that Facebook did see the potential in all their boardroom meetings looking at data that they decided to shift their entire business to VR. You can point to their failure, but I think that's more to do with overhyping the metaverse than VR itself. Because, yeah, the metaverse is absolute garbage.

faste30 t1_j196526 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:20 PM

We shall see if it sticks though, the phone VR was fun in the beginning too.

jormungandrsjig t1_j18yl4y wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:29 PM

> For example I have a PSVR and it’s a really long time since I used it because I recognized that vr is just not a enjoyable way to play for me.

Until I can have something as light as wire frame eyeglasses. It's never going to be big with me.

Fritzschmied t1_j18z59c wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:33 PM

Even then. In ma opinion it has the same problem as 3d Glases at home which were really light. It’s just not worth the hustle for a not as chill experience but maybe good for the wow factor in a cinema or amusement park and I see vr in the same place.

AdmiralWackbar t1_j18trmz wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:55 PM

1% of VR owners would be more like 1.5 mil

Fritzschmied t1_j18xc8k wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:21 PM

Even that is way to much.

rixtil41 t1_j19rwoo wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:40 PM

Are you against marks meta verse or vr it self ?

AdmiralWackbar t1_j1dx29r wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:19 PM

It’s not a hobby that I’m interested in, the cost for those things is too much for me

LazyLobster t1_j19lzak wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:02 PM

I'm not interested in it, so the rest of the world must not be interested in it.

aVRAddict t1_j1a8vxs wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:32 PM

You think that until meta puts out a photorealistic product with on demand AI generated world's. It's only a matter of time until something like that is released.

AdmiralWackbar t1_j1dwxpb wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:18 PM

Yeah no interest

Dan_Felder t1_j17r02p wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:42 AM

What substance?

Blockchain has nothing to do with this. Blockchain just needed a usecase and Metaverse needed some explanation about what leap in tech had made it possible all of a sudden, and so "web3" was born by combing the two scams.

Only generative AI makes virtual worlds on that scale remotely possible, and it IS the far more exciting thing.

Xist3nce t1_j182b3v wrote on December 22, 2022 at 10:18 AM

Until you remember we can’t have anything good under human greed. Whatever corporations that crack solid AI use will monetize it so hard it won’t be even nearly 1/100th or what it could be. We have enough resources in the world to solve almost all problems globally. We won’t obviously, but we could. Meta could have bought VR chat, slapped some money in their pockets and just profit but they wanted to drag any semblance of something that could be cool if they actually knew anything about humans through the mud because Zuck wanted full control over the narrative. The “meta verse” is already here and no one wants to be bombarded with ads or work in VR.

Trips-Over-Tail t1_j190gvh wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:42 PM

What hype?

Dan_Felder t1_j19axho wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:51 PM

They’ve been using it to hype a lot of stuff in the blockchain space.

runefar t1_j1b2n73 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 11:59 PM

Except there are a lot of different business beyond this using web3. Blockchain didn't need a usecase. On a functional level it already has a usecase but people wanted to build beyond that use case like with many architectural technology and they in fact have. Metaverse is one of the more weird ones but there are also other forms of the technology more actively being built upon in healthcare related usages around automation as well as around advanced airmobility and on top of those technology things will also be built and integrated. Sadly the financial side gets more focus but there is a whole ecosystem that is more active than you are acknowledging...

Dan_Felder t1_j1b2whl wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:01 AM

>Except there are a lot of different business beyond this using web3. Blockchain didn't need a usecase.

Okay, please list any use cases please of what blockchain can do that can't be done better, cheaper, or faster without it. I'm very used to hearing people claim there are lots of use cases but it usually comes down to a few variations on, "what if we required owning a token to get discounts on stuff we already sell anyway?"

runefar t1_j1b8b9y wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:42 AM

Well on the basic front blockchain use case is of course one most normal people are not gonna interact with. That is basically in many ways to some degree have a technology that facilitates assets through a public ledger and that has a consensus mechanism that can solve byzantine-general based problem especially on a decentralized network. That would be the more simplistic aspect of a blockchain though I am kinda pressuring it down a bit. More useful for the normal person is really the architectural technology that we have developed since then on top of this technology and yes that can at times relate to token but it isn't about how you get discounts and instead how do you automate those aspects internally and systematically. For example, you likely imagine that a NFT is just the picture however internally an NFT is a token and a smart contract and it can be attached to things beyond a picture such as other forms of data. With the most default smart contract you can automate that a percentage of what was spent will automatically be sent to the original minter without that needing to be stored longterm or accessible yet also still transparent through the ledger. One example a company in a ecosystem I am working on uses it for that goes against the grain is for creating the direction of creating open fertility access through enabling people to automate where their fertility data will go yet also then have that itself enable access to it. This however is simply the default form of a smart contract and other forms exist depending on what you build in something like clarity. Another form is stacking pools where a trustless system is built towards decentralized distribution of assets without one person needing to be holding the money. For a simplistic usage this could be for the game of fantasy football for example but for more complex usages this could be in the form of co-op or companies and how to structure and yet make more transparent things such as worker distributed systems of payment or other aspects.Of course some of these aspects may be more simply for the developer side as they are not all end layer solution and I think that confuses people because the truth is that blockchain isn't gonna always be a end layer solution. Often you may not even know you will be interesting with blockchain and in fact 81 out of the top 100 companies are already building blockchain related projects. also for additional info the stacks documents are some good help when it comes to explaining smart contracts https://docs.hiro.so/intro https://docs.stacks.co/docs/understand-stacks/ https://stacks.org/grants

However more complexity in systems such as advanced airmobility there are unique niches that groups such as NASA identify with specifically the need for increased decentralization. As increasingly different systems need decentralization as an aspect of their inherent structure, they will need systems such as blockchain and systems that build further from that to be able to facilitate the next transition of devices in how they interact with each other,how they are automated to do so and in many regards what enables them to functionally remain ongoing in a way you cant with a centralized network. This is especially true as we create more and more drone based application including localized emergency drone spaces for safety reason and their is a need for a more active network that can be facilitated from different nodes(I admit I am simplifying that down a bit)

Dan_Felder t1_j1bc25u wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:11 AM

>That is basically in many ways to some degree have a technology that facilitates assets through a public ledger and that has a consensus mechanism that can solve byzantine-general based problem especially on a decentralized network. That would be the more simplistic aspect of a blockchain though I am kinda pressuring it down a bit

Yes, this is a new way to do stuff we already do - the thing about reinventing wheels is that you need to explain why the new wheels are better, faster, or cheaper than the old wheels. A LOT better because getting people to switch standards is wildly expensive, even on something as simple as the keyboard layout. I'm sure you know that Dvorak hasn't really caught on despite the current layout being intentionally inefficient.

>but it isn't about how you get discounts and instead how do you automate those aspects internally and systematically.

Sounds like you're talking about smart contracts. If so, these are just computer programs that do stuff for all intents and purposes. They are also highly exploitable and lead to a lot of the hacks we know about. This is likely to only get more vulnerable when AI assistants can analyze them for vulnerabilities more efficiently. In general though, nothing about blockchain tech is necessary for an automated process to happen absent human decision makers based on a program. High-frequency traders have been doing this on the actual stockmarket for a while now. It's also just how computer programs work in general.

>For example, you likely imagine that a NFT is just the picture however internally an NFT is a token and a smart contract and it can be attached to things beyond a picture such as other forms of data.

NFTs are not pictures, NFTs are tokens that represent links to places on a ledger. They are similar to digital redemption codes we've seen for digital purchases for years now, the only meaningful difference is that they link to something on a blockchain database instead of a normal one.

>With the most default smart contract you can automate that a percentage of what was spent will automatically be sent to the original minter without that needing to be stored longterm or accessible yet also still transparent through the ledger.

Good example of the "we can already do this". Automated royalty payments are nothing new.

>One example a company in a ecosystem I am working on uses it for that goes against the grain is for creating the direction of creating open fertility access through enabling people to automate where their fertility data will go yet also then have that itself enable access to it.

Another good example of "we can already do this". This is just about automated computer programs, nothing unique to a blockchain.

>Another form is stacking pools where a trustless system is built towards decentralized distribution of assets without one person needing to be holding the money.

This always sounds nice in theory but in reality you almost always expose more vulnerabilities than you eliminate - because there needs to be a remedy to undo mistakes or mitigate hacking/fraud. That's why we see so many of these "trustless" systems being taken for all their assets or NFTs being stolen through the more common points of vulnerablity - such as phishing attempts or exploiting the new vulnerabilities introduced by relying on smart contracts in the first place (the very name 'smart contract' makes it sound new - in general it's just a rebranded trading algorithm).

>Often you may not even know you will be interesting with blockchain and in fact 81 out of the top 100 companies are already building blockchain related projects.

Naturally, it's been a free way to boost quarterly results. Some companies just changed their name to include the word "crypto" and so on and saw a boom. Many of them are also foolish enough to believe the snake oil salesman. What's fascinating to me is how so many companies can be building blockchain and NFT projects and similar, and yet can find so few meaningful use cases.

>However more complexity in systems such as advanced airmobility there are unique niches that groups such as NASA identify with specifically the need for increased decentralization.

What are these unique niches that demand decentralization, and how exactly does the blockchain deliver on these niches better?

TLDR: You listed a bunch of use cases for automated computer programs, mostly trading algorithms. These are neither new nor unique to blockchain ledgers.

runefar t1_j1bzn46 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:20 AM

To be honest, it is actually much more that the financial use cases get higher prioritization while groups working on use cases that are more about building on top of these aspects of the technology don't get as much focus. In addition, it isn't really reinventing the wheel, rather it is integrating different parts into different systems. I actually partly agree that some of this stuff can already be done before but part of the goal is in fact specifically in doing the same things we could do before on a more decentralized network because of the weakness that a centralized network has and certain disadvantages that it has when you are working with different systems. Enabling access to both centralized and decentralized systems as a whole is in fact what many people desire in spaces such as advanced air mobility because it enables increased stability of the network as a whole for example and data to flow through it in a way that can not be as consistently acomplshied over a centralized network.

In addition, to some degree I actually don't think your point about where the vulnerabilities is, is in fact a negative towards blockchain. It is of course before you understand the technology and when you are more normalized to it but the truth is that all technology has a social hole in it. Ensuring that the vulnerability is more on the social hole rather than the technology itself is actually indicative of a stronger system technology wise and it shows that we can then begin to work on fixing on the social side of it rather than solely worrying about the technology side.

This is in fact one of the goal of blockchain technologies which is to ensure as much as realistically possible the hole in security are on the human side. Sadly that will always be a problem and that is also why more people must learn about the technology but most technology have huge holes in both sides and increasingly centralized services(as well as PoS) can be attacked with specific method. Considering these aspects gives us more options to build on in relation to cyber security of different data as well especially when we are discussing about the automation and transportation of it. Plus yes I would agree that it isn't perfect. To me I want people to build on it because we all have our own needs. That to me is what a architectural technology means. I don't think people should be forced to build on it but I do think they should be more willing to understand it and build on it and I think there are usages with its different consues making aspects that affect real aspects of our society yet at the same time, this is also just very architectural stuff that will be built on top of too. In addition, to some level aspects of decentralization can also offer interconnection with digitization of more analog based routines as well and with certain use cases in specific niches that may have its own specific niche too while still retaining of course an analog core. As we increasingly need some way to interconnect even our analog components into broader systems, there may be a place for fulfilling that function with how blockchain functions in some respect and that may also be a component of further system surrounding more aerospace based operations. To be honest though most companies I have intereacted with more at the moment prefer to focus around the automation of data side and the decentralization of data as they see that as necessary for their next generation of operation due to limitations they have encountered within centeralized systems.

With different companies they will end up building on it in different ways and towards different direction. This doesn't remove that there was an initial use case long time ago when blockchain was created. It just shows how its use has expanded and how it has become much more of an ecosystem. Even my own white paper is more focused on utilizing it towards more mechanical usages and around renewable usages.Different spheres will completely use it in different ways and experiment with it in different ways. It is fine if you don't want to use it, but to say it has no usage is much more simply appealing to your own normalization around the technology you are used to using. Different systems bring different interaction after all and with that you can build on in different ways. But yeah I also wish more than the financial sector were getting hyped up so people would be seeing all the technology companies I am used to interacting with but sadly that is unlikely. In fact for example you compared smart contract to a trading algorithm and you aren't fully wrong too. But as I pointed out earlier that is literally just the most default smart contract. Not all smart contracts function that way. While the most default smart contract functions in such a way that every time the token is sent it executes a percentage back to the original minter, other contracts are in fact programmed to execute different aspects and be automated around other aspects within a system. This means they may not always be seen as simply a replacement for trading algorithm but other elements of the system too and it is really that aspects which to some degree makes them quite useful. basically the ability to much more automate and systematized aspects that normally would be more difficult to do between parties yet on a basis where both parties can verify it as well including within the system itself. Maybe as I hinted earlier you should read a bit more about smart contract on the stacks page

Dan_Felder t1_j1c4t1g wrote on December 23, 2022 at 5:08 AM

I'm passing over the first chunk because it doesn't give any concrete specific use cases. While you may be alluding to a real one, I've heard enough "this totally fixes X problem" when it actually doesn't once you get to specifics. For example:

>In addition, to some degree I actually don't think your point about where the vulnerabilities is, is in fact a negative towards blockchain[...] we can then begin to work on fixing on the social side of it rather than solely worrying about the technology side.

If you're trying to stop your house flooding when it rains, you shouldn't worry too much about making the door-seams watertight as long as there's a gigantic hole in your roof. The point is that the added 'security' offered by blockchain in most cases is not meaningfully making anything more secure, because there are massive vulnerabilities either way that are exploited far more often.

It's actually worse than that though, because the unique characteristics of the blockchain actually make things worse for phishing - since blockchain has a much harder time reverting fraudulent transactions, and the lack of a human layer right now makes it harder to spot fraud in progress too. So it's like ripping more material OFF the roof in order to board up the doorseams. Senseless way to keep the rain out.

>To be honest though most companies I have intereacted with more at the moment prefer to focus around the automation of data side and the decentralization of data as they see that as necessary for their next generation of operation due to limitations they have encountered within centeralized systems.

Sounds like you believe you have a lot of examples of limitations encountered within centralized systems that are best solved by decentralized systems that require blockchain. Mind listing your best one?

>It is fine if you don't want to use it, but to say it has no usage is much more simply appealing to your own normalization around the technology you are used to using.

I say it has no use cases because no one has ever been able to articulate a meaningful use case that can't be done better or cheaper without it. There are some extremely narrow use cases but nothing close to what the blockchain pushers claim. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of usecases I've ever heard anyone suggest that seem to require blockchain or are more efficient with blockchain.

The problem is that a blockchain ledger is just fundamentally a bigger, slower, less efficient version of a normal ledger. That's why there are no usecases.

Removing the "trusted central authority" is an illusion. While control of the network can be spread out to people that pay for the computing power or tokens, you can also do this via "buying voting shares". Buying equity in a bank is not a new idea.

It is extremely difficult to make the transactions truly irreversible and the ledgers impossible to fork or rollback without... well... Removing the ability for people to fix problems or roll back fraud. Which is FAR more common a problem and harder to handle within official channels than a centralized authority going rogue and ignoring its shareholders or fiduciary responsibilities under the law.

"The system is bad" is not a sales pitch to replace it with a worse, less efficient, more fraud-prone system.

>While the most default smart contract functions in such a way that every time the token is sent it executes a percentage back to the original minter, other contracts are in fact programmed to execute different aspects and be automated around other aspects within a system.

Yes, for example the automated algorithims of High Frequency Trading firms are monumnetally complex and execute in microseconds. The problem with this argument is that saying "programming has use cases" is not an argument for blockchain. Blockchain requires programming, programming doesn't require blockchain.

The same flawed argument is made in the NFT space, when people start talking about being able to sell digital assets to other players for real money being a use case; when people have been doing that for over a decade already in various games.

runefar t1_j1ez6l3 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 8:39 PM

Actually I kinda did mention multiple but it seems that you want to get stuck up on viewing this from a financial only perspective. I just am still trying to balance this with a generalized take as well because different space will have different needs and because we shouldn't simplify a technology that is meant to be built on. A technology that you put on your roof is in many ways much more of an end layer solution. Having been in several programs developing things like it, often there are IP it is interconnected with too that are not useless yet are still more relevant for the manufacture than the end layer for example aspects that affect aerogel design and similar aspects.

Also admittedly, part of why I keep it generalized is because I don't want to go into details about every single industry themselves because I already have wall of text. Basically to keep it simple but a desired aspect of the model advanced aerospace is the concept of an airspace that is actively ongoing in our ecosystem around us helping out in emergency systems. In many cases a drone can be communicated by with a centralized network but as the aerospace becomes more and more complex, the benefit towards having a decentralized network is the ability for each unit to much more pass data seemlesly back and forth between each other and act as nodes as part of a greater network. For those who are focused on researching the intercommunication of automation of drone, decentralization is often seen as a natural next step by many NASA scientists I have talked to and those who work on different drone related projects. The first step is of course increasingly mesh networking many devices and interconnecting via that sense creating more FANET devices that can send peer to peer information and creating a mesh network of information that way. Then increasingly the usage of decentralized native technologies like blockchain is in some sense partly to do what you actually criticized them for doing which is do what they were doing before just automating them and doing it on a decentralized public ledger. This may not be important for your project, but it affects how different systems can be built especially when we are talking about systems where there can be a temporary disconnect of the network and a reconnect such as in emergency situations. Conseus mechanism based aspects around that situation actually do potentially lead to bigger changes around what we can with say emergency fire trucks that are operating on different frequency and farther away from the city and how systems of interaction that be built in around them. As well, it more and more is becoming relevant to potentially affecting locations that are currently stuck in a digital divide as places like indigenous population are actually quite big contributors to building in the ecosystem too.

In addition, in the NFT space, you are fully right that isn't a completely new thing and I wish more people acknowledged that. I mean heck I remember when people were hoarding CD for the same reason they were talking about NFTs and crypto. In fact I find it is more people outside the NFT space who don't acknowledge that. People within the NFT space may instead use it for different community application or they may be building their own application around the technology such as my friend mirlo is around her studio based application of smartist. All of this has to work with the social systems of course, but different people see this as solving different needs like Mirlo actually see this as enabling more visibility for digital artists and the ability to create a more studio like environment for artists than was previously able to be had in the digital space. Other more use it for selling community access for example or just for selling the NFT themselves. Further more other use the NFT to automate data that so that it can be sent to doctor but never exclusively remain in the hands of doctors as well as be transparent about where it has gone and yet private giving more access attempting to create new networks around fertility treatment and automation. Interestingly even the UN has their own take on blockchain https://unite.un.org/sites/unite.un.org/files/emerging-tech-series-blockchain.pdf and of course countries like estonia use it along with x_chain as part of their healthcare https://investinestonia.com/business-opportunities/e-health/healthcare/

Dan_Felder t1_j1f1q39 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 8:57 PM

>Actually I kinda did mention multiple but it seems that you want to get stuck up on viewing this from a financial only perspective.

Nope, it's just that I'm giving examples of automated processes that already exist without the blockchain, and using finance as an example is an easy one.

You have unfortunately not provided use cases in detail for most of your use cases, which means I can't trust they're actually solutions to real problems requiring blockchain. You'd need to explain the "how" and demonstrate that it's better than alternatives with a convincing case. If you're worried about walls of text, I suggest writing more substance as generalized claims without specifics are not useful or convincing.

I can easily believe peer-to-peer communication has applications in certain industries, it's been used for a long time, but I doubt these require blockchain. If the goal is increased efficiency, blockchain generally slows everything down by definition. If the goal is simply "decentralization" then you can do it more easily without blockchain in most applications. I doubt firetrucks have a big need for "trustless" algorithm decision making.

I feel like I've covered the nonsense of the NFT aspect of this before, so I won't do so again in detail - but NFTs do nothing meaningful to protect artists. In fact, rightclick save into minting an NFT linking to the same image is a common way NFTs increased the amount of art theft going on.

I also find it's weird that you keep complaining about me responding to the financial use cases and keep providing me financial use cases - as this UN link is just a restatement of "blockchain creates trustless decentralized immunatable records of ownership". Like your examples of royalties and automated trading, this comes back around to finance and the problems with phishing and fraud are still massive here.

I actually think the UN has reason to be interested in blockchain because they often deal with one of my few usecases I do see as relevant: which is they deal with disputes between countries and political/financial powers where there's no higher governing authority to appeal to. The idea of a blockchain handling some of these issues for them would make them happy. However, the problems persist with the power dynamics as they always do and I've covered elseqhere in my posts. Won't keep restating them.

Creating backups to backups to backups of government records is already doable without blockchain tech as well and not relevant for most industries. It's also one of my few use-cases I consider semi-valid. The BIG problem here is that the expense of migrating all the existing data to a blockchain based solution is so inefficient and risks a lot of problems compared ot just saving and printing more backups.

Migrating data infrastructures is a pretty colossal endeavor and the rewards would have to be gigantic to justify it. Some governments will do it even if inefficient of course because it can enrich benefactors.

runefar t1_j1ezy58 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 8:44 PM

Also an example of one NASA blockchain project https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190000022 though naturally they tend to primarily experiment with hyperledger at the moment so using a private ledger, but with similar other aspects. There is some different arguments I would say personally on public versus private ledgers and in fact how you can create networks that fulfill the mix of the needs of both but that it is a whole other story. Be aware though this is likely not one of their priority investigations of course and even at NASA different departments will be unaware of the investigations of others even when it seems like they should be investigating the same aspect. I know this from personal experience and it can be so awkward lol XD but NTRS host a good amount of blockchain relevant project mainly from names. Of course some on NTRS to look out for are those from competitions but most are from ames

Really though as I emphasized earlier, this is more an ecosystem with both its own benefits and difficulties. It isn't solely about a transition to decentralization though for different areas that may come with different benefits. Creating further aspects to facilitate different needs sometimes exactly the same needs in ways we couldn't do before because different interaction do require reformating our system in different ways at times.

And yes, we shouldn't be overly confident in security either, as I emphasized earlier I do believe that account for the human side is very important. In fact that is often my issue with a lot of policies around blockchain which is that they are overly standardized.

Also what you said isn't exactly true about reverting transactions but that can be network dependent. In fact, It can be easier to track transaction on blockchain without indirectly messing up anyone up unlike on the banking network where if someone steal money the people who are along the path also have a high chance of having their money reverted too. In the cases where there has been a direct to reversion, blockchain turned out to be able to be better than the banking systems at it because it didn't put the people along the way at risk as well. Interestingly cases where it is held in a centralized institution rather are an exception though because they are in fact not decentralized and are in fact closer to our centralized banking system funny enough and those have been where the biggest scams are. It isn't perfect though and there is difficulties and that is why we need to make more people understand it too and not overstandardize our regulation, but build off the technology too so that the laws can not be solely based on how the fiancance was done previously or how fiance is done but how the technology works and is likely to develop too to be able to better counter that problem. It goes into this whole thing about pseudoanonymity versus it being coded into the ledger and what that means from a more functional standpoint when we get into situations like that(of course actually it will also have been visible that it was moved too in the code). In addition this also goes into the whole thing about the difference between an architectural technology versus a system on top. Even bitcoin can be viewed as an architectural technology and more complicated systems can and potentially should be built on top with visions of those aspects though their are arguments for why or why not as well as different programs,

Dan_Felder t1_j1f2an4 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 9:01 PM

I don't know enough about the tech to evaluate this, but one of the weaknesses of blockchain from a security standpoint is that you inherently spread the information in more places so all the computers can check it. I have doubts it's genuinely the best way to keep information anonymous vs other forms of decentralization. Again, I don't know enough about this situation, but I find it amusing how the two major aspects of Blockchain people often push are the "transparency" on the one hand and "total lack of transparency" on the other.

runefar t1_j1f6dcf wrote on December 23, 2022 at 9:30 PM

Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technologies. It also isn't transparency versus total lack of transparency and I try to explain this to so many people because it seems like people have an issue imagining a binary that doesn't exist. It is more that the ledger itself interests as a form of transparency around the transactions that are occuring while you can have more protection around the data itself that is being actively transported. You can not get this level of protection with a centralized system because if someone successfully penetrates the centralized system they now have access to your data. With a decentralized system, it is as if there are multiple nodes delegated to different tasks as well as interconnected within a mesh style.
When they disconnect from the network, the network as a whole is still up and if they did any transaction peer to peer off the network when they reconnect to the network, the conceus mechanism will go through the process it needs to do to verify those transactions)done by stacking, mining or in a PoX both). This means even a network that operated its transactions off the internet through peer to peer transaction can then be enabled to be settled within the network through the conseus mechanism when it eventually does reconnect.
Literally all forms of decentralization could be described by "spread the information in more places". Also it is their miners or stacker that are running a cryptographic conseus mechanism to dedicate that energy towards verifying the rest of the network. They are much more facilitating the flowthrough of the network than looking at what exactly is in your data. It is more about conseus of the transactions that occurred within the network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking

Dan_Felder t1_j1f8dw4 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 9:45 PM

>Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technolo--

The stuff you just posted is super basic. I just don't have the arrogance to dig into an academic paper on a specific argument for a use case and analyze it against the technical and security risks of other forms of securing data in an industry I've never worked in, one which has a lot of complex and difficult-to-foresee incentives, limitations, etc. There's too big an information black hole for me to feel comfortable making a judgment about the various competing cases here in the practical world of solving real world problems more efficiently than other problems.

I've seen enough people confidently asserting blockchain will replace every industry and pretty much nothing but wild failure - even in the things they were *specifically* designed for; securing transactions and protecting artists. Both have been calamitous failures, as the inventor of the tech admitted to.

I have also already said that backing up data without governing transactions is a possible use case and may have special interest for governments, since there is no need to reverse transactions or deal with the other downstream problems when you're just collecting data - and I already said that decentralized models have use cases.

I doubt it's efficient to do this with exsiting government records vs other options for securing them, but it's possible that highly sensitive intelligence data that is building new networks from the ground-up anyway makes sense to use them. However, I don't know enough about the internal incentives, programs, day to day work, alternative models, etc to make a clear value judgment and don't pretend I do.

runefar t1_j1ff9zg wrote on December 23, 2022 at 10:39 PM

Fair enough though when you talk about failure remember that it is important to remember that all technology also works with the social systems too and that many of those failures are more to do the fact that we have to over time both adapt on both sides too. That has to be considered as well in what a failure is. Is it a failure in the technology or a failure for both the social and technology to mesh.... but yes there are things to be built on and interegrations to be done better.... that is why ecosystems exist afterall

if you want to talk more just dm so we don't bother anyone else. see you around. I may have information to provide you but you are in fact indirectly being less specific about information you are asking for then you realize so naturally I am starting with the basic when it sounds like you don't grasps key elements. Even more different systems will be more or less hyper specific about intersection to some degree and depending on how you can envision a system I may or may not be able to describe how it is done simply because I don't know about the other technology requirements of the system and then how they may work together. That in the end affects aspects of the solution too and how they manifest as well in a design

runefar t1_j1b9i19 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:51 AM

also for some stacks job if that is what you are into too look them out. Stacks is a more technology based sphere interconnected with a wide global group building on different networks and different groups https://www.stacks.co/jobs

Dan_Felder t1_j1bcu63 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:18 AM

Thanks, but don't worry - I get a web3 recruiter contacting me at least once a week already.

insite t1_j19k3kw wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:50 PM

Tech companies are working to solve problems we don't realize exists and are increasing rapidly. If we can ignore nationalism or politics, I want to point to the rise of China over the last 40 years. An amazing feat, whereas the US took 150+ years. Both efforts took vast amounts of concrete, steel, and other resources. It became clear the word can't sustain another rise like that, and the ecological harm is at the top of that list.

Meaning, there will be an increasing wealth gap in the world at a time the world needs to work together the most. We're too interconnected. What happens in one country affects the others. I'll get to why this matters.

Technology is a great equalizer though. I have a smartphone, and a billionaires have smartphones. They probably have better service and apps, but we both have smartphones. Same with tablets and computers. With AR & VR, we'll be able to see multiple screens, rather than multiple monitors.

Take the logical further, like how nice a person's home is. If a person sees and feels like their home is cozy or spacious, it doesn't matter if it's not as physically impressive. It just needs to provide shelter and allow for good hygiene and food. Just like Internet speeds and cell phones, it will change the definition of "living standards". The benefits cannot be overstated.

The possibilities are near limitless. Training for hostile environments. Heck, training athletes to be winners, as you can see the psychological harm a mental stigma can have on a career. Improving the way we feel about our environment, without simultaneously destroying it.

Meta's name change connected them to the Metaverse in the eyes of the public. Meta is facing some significant challenges; anti-trust, cookies dying, facebook losing users, spooked investors. Those are all incentives for Mark Zuckerberg to push for the next technology. He was even warned by an investor that the browser isn't replaceable yet, and he should do continue developing some for that too.

Mark is relying on Ray Kurzwweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. Meta doesn't have to come up with all the tech themselves. Most tech companies will be involved in some way. Take Epic's Unreal Engine 5 for example. Mark may be facing the sort of problem Bill Gates faced in the late 90's; seeing where the future leads but not knowing how long it will take to get there.

Changing the name to Meta was a shrewd move, but it very well may push companies to adopt a different name. Tim Cook has gushed about AR, and has never said the word Metaverse publicly. He pointed out that few would want to be in VR for more than a couple hours. They are direct competitors afterall, and Mark said both companies are vying to shape the Metaverse into their own visions of it.

To pay for the development requires widespread adoption of the stepping stone technologies. How do you achieve that with a public soured on new tech? By making technology more democratic. Think OpenAI, ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, MidJourney. We'll be using those to create the world we want to see and experience. The Metaverse will be partly our own creations, those of our friends, family, and others around the world.

Think about Superman and Batman, both DC Comics characters, in a Marvel movie. Which company wins? They both stand to make huge profits. They just need to establish guidelines so that Superman and Batman act like themselves, but they work in a Marvel Universe. Allowing users fo take their characters from one game to another with equipment from a third means more companies stand to benefit, and so do users. I couldn't imagine Mario in a Mortal Kombat setting, but I can picture a Minecraft creeper sneaking up on Luigi.

Most social media in its current form, like Facebook and Twitter, profit from keeping us apart. That tech can be retooled to improve our interactions together in MR environments. Since we're going into space for good, we'll need XR tech to keep up with friends and family. Blockchain will be critical to adding a sort of permanence to trades and changes, like digital currency exchanges. Blockchain can also provide a digital markers to track trolls and fraud across platforms Oh, and HTTP/3 would like to weigh in on the discussion about web3 as a scam.

Yes, we'll adopt the technology, Metaverse, or whatever we call it. It's only overhyped momentarily.

Edited for grammar

Dan_Felder t1_j19lzaf wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:02 PM

A lot more of the world will make sense to you if you stop assuming people are playing 4D chess.

Blockchain has had a staggering amount of time, money, and brainpower invested into finding any meaningful usecases for it, and nothing meaningful has materialized. People will claim an endless list of use cases but once you get downt o specifics of things blockchain can do that can't be done better or cheaper without it, they all shrivel up or are based on empty air. I've spoken to endless blockchain-pumpers, a bunch have tried to recruit me to their companies.

It's not a secret they have no use cases, that's why the new wave after the crypto crashes has been to say "hey customers care about utility now, we should... find some?"

Blockchain was just a digital snakeoil, and I mean that nearly literally - as it was sold as a cure-all that would mysteriously disrupt every industry. It was a classic Ponzi scheme mixed with a speculator boom/bust cycle - incredibly predictable.

The concept of a "metaverse" is almost impossible to debunk because it's an ooze - it shifts to endless definitions because when you nail them down outside the VR or AR component they sound like like World of Warcraft and Second Life, and that's not "new" so it's not cool enough to get them excited.

Will VR and AR have some future applications? Sure, of course. But people pitching a "metaverse" as a new version of the internet are talking about experiencing the internet as a VR experience and that's just really, really bad as a user experience.

The genuinely "disrupt everything" tech is going to happen due to LLM work like ChatGPT because all of software is trying to tell a computer what to do. Computers can display infinite possible digital experiences, but they need to know what to display. LLMs allow people to instruct a computer through natural language rather than fine-tuned tools to get to the basics, and if a computer can export other things into natural language the tools can talk to eachother... Which has inane potential.

That is the most likely thing that leads to a real "web 3.0".

dhezl t1_j1at9fv wrote on December 22, 2022 at 10:51 PM

As a software architect and 20-year industry vet, this is almost 100% exactly my take. Well said.

insite t1_j1bakod wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:00 AM

Blockchain is not a cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies are not blockchain; blockchain is their primary underlying technology. Blockchain is being integrated into most industries in some way or another, and it's already being used on large parts of the web.

The US has a digital currency in the works. It is not a crypocurrency either - rather a CBDC, or Central Bank Digital Currency. For a purely digital currency to exist requires a more closed-loop system. Blockchain is a critical technology in making that possible.

Dan_Felder t1_j1bck36 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:15 AM

Blockchain is not necessary in making a purely digital currency. They exist in videogames all the time. Money laundering even happens through buying and selling videogame currencies or items.

chriscov t1_j17rohc wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:51 AM

Every decade techno utupianists proudly declare that VR will change the world radically... and the FOMO crowd go chasing after it... but it never materialises. This time around it is no different.

WaitingForNormal t1_j17smgd wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:03 AM

VR is great for gaming. Not sure why people need to make it into something more.

Frostedbutler t1_j18ykdp wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:29 PM

Its awesome until I get motion sickness. I don't think I'm could wear it long enough to do my job or anything more meaningful than a phone call.

Gaming is fun though

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j19nwuf wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:14 PM

Some companies don’t need VR to expand past gaming, but the money Meta has invested only makes sense if the market is mostly non-gamers. This is a tall order.

Microsoft’s Xbox was becoming competitive with the PlayStation, but when the Xbox One came out it was marketed as a set-top streaming/browsing device in addition to a game console.

Sony doubled down on gaming and focused on great exclusive titles and performance.

Microsoft (narrowly) regained the graphical performance title with the Xbox Series X, but by then, nobody cared.

The lesson for VR is to focus on gaming until the form factor makes sense for other applications.

WaitingForNormal t1_j1bln5h wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:26 AM

100% agree

chriscov t1_j17sxak wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:07 AM

For some people it is, for others it causes motion sickness... but forcing AR/VR into a new Snowcrasheske world... not gonna happen.

VicMain t1_j17ts13 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:19 AM

I honestly disagree when it comes to AR. People are hooked to their phones 24/7. Imagine not needing to touch your device at all but it's just there in your view the instant you want it.

Take a look at this

dogonix OP t1_j17v4aw wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:37 AM

That's precisely the issue. I'm sure I would enjoy putting AR glasses on and off for specific activities but a permanent projection and stimulation may melt down my brain :) check out this anecdotal concept

joshikus t1_j1938u0 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:01 PM

My buddy has Nreals. They're unreal. I hooked my Steam Deck up to them, and it was a blast.

chriscov t1_j17ty9h wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:21 AM

It fine saying that people want this technology, and the technology may be cool, but the last 30 years tells us that almost every endeavour in this field is a resounding failure.... Google Glass being a casing point, which is often conveniently overlooked.

VicMain t1_j17ue90 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:27 AM

Google glass wasnt an AR headset just a pair of glasses with a heads up display attached at the upper corner of the right eyepiece. I see what your saying as far as the failures but even 10 years ago we were not close to the tech we have now to make an actual usable product like the one I linked above.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dj6c3 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:41 PM

It sounds like you would have said the same thing about PCs in the early 1980s.

"Work? Socializing? Shopping? Bah. Just let PCs be used for gaming. It doesn't need to be all these other things."

Yet look at how PCs are used today. Gaming is a huge part, but so are all these other things, and it's going to be no different for VR.

WaitingForNormal t1_j1djpjt wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:45 PM

Gaming sucked on PC’s in the 80’s. So, no.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1djulg wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:46 PM

Well it doesn't matter either way. Most people use VR for socializing, not for gaming.

Reddit is just an echo chamber. Best to assume that the majority opinion on reddit is the minority opinion in the real world.

nanowell t1_j18kp1q wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:44 PM

Every decade? VR became a thing in 2015, yeah maybe there was a future concepts in 90s but these are joke compared to what VR right now

chriscov t1_j18spe1 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:48 PM

Yep. Every decade, going back to 1980s. They didn't think it was a joke then, just as in 10 years they'll think we've got now is a joke... but it'll still fail to catch on then.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dizs1 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:39 PM

> Yep. Every decade, going back to 1980s.

Let me count. 1980s, no. 1990s, yes. 2000s, no. 2010s yes.

So that's twice. One that failed, and one where it is finally here to stay.

Doesn't seem like 'every decade' to me.

chriscov t1_j1dogb5 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:19 PM

You could potentially argue that the 2000s didn't really release any hype, but could equally argue that the 1970s did. Frankly, I think you're missing the point and VR has a long history of failure.... sorry if it hurts to accept that. https://virtualspeech.com/blog/history-of-vr

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dq2ri wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:31 PM

Consumer VR first existed in the 1990s. Anything prior to that existed only in arcades and laboratories or a rare enterprise deal.

I suppose there was hype in the 1980s, but not consumer hype.

chriscov t1_j1dr6o9 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:38 PM

The only distinguishing factor with an increase in consumer products is it will make the failure more spectacular.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1drhva wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:41 PM

VR is beyond failure. That much is written in stone at this point.

[deleted] t1_j18wwu8 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:18 PM

[deleted]

nanowell t1_j18wzoe wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:18 PM

Yes but it became more popular in 2015

aVRAddict t1_j1a9x0c wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:38 PM

Except VR is huge now and youre lame boomer take is totally wrong. Look up how many quest 2 sold. Imagine being this clueless

chriscov t1_j1aaopk wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:43 PM

I guess everyone selling Meta's shares is wrong too. I'd better chose my short position. My bad. Lol.

aVRAddict t1_j1acee8 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:55 PM

They are wrong. Most people are idiots and think horizons is the metaverse. Watch the keynotes and lab research videos and you will understand why VR will continue to grow and become ubiquitous.

chriscov t1_j1acz5t wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:58 PM

Second thoughts, I'll keep that short position open... making far too much money.

lexartifex t1_j18f75c wrote on December 22, 2022 at 12:54 PM

I think AR is way more likely to break through than VR. I just hope it comes from a company more like Apple and not Meta, and I hope the DOJ/FTC actually enforce antitrust in this space rather than waste their time protecting Call of Duty for whatever reason.

TransitoryPhilosophy t1_j19c8js wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:59 PM

Agree, Metaverse will be AR rather than VR. Think about a pair of AR glasses running a live stable diffusion type model, based entirely on what you want to see

aVRAddict t1_j1aala1 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:43 PM

No VR is superior because it's more immersive and makes sense. AR is pretty much tech demo gimmicks. You have fun rotating a couch in your living room or making your wall a portal to space while I enjoy a fully coherent and immersive virtual world.

TransitoryPhilosophy t1_j1acykv wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:58 PM

VR can’t become a mainstream technology; AR can and will. You’re comparing a mainframe to an iPhone

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dchu0 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:47 PM

False. It's objectively decided that VR will become mainstream first.

This is a matter of laws of physics. AR has to come after, because VR gets solved first, and there's no way around that.

TransitoryPhilosophy t1_j1doh8x wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:19 PM

Pour one out for the first generation to mainstream VR; they died with their helmets on 🍺

SvenTheHorrible t1_j1c3ori wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:58 AM

VR loses because you cant actually go places with it

For gaming VR is perfect, you get a room and you get to escape reality for a bit. You do however lose all interaction with the real world- you all digital while in VR.

For meta, and for the activities they want to start incorporating, AR wins because you’re still tethered to reality, you can still do all the things you need to in the real world and have the advantages that VR would offer.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dcpbf wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:48 PM

> AR wins because you’re still tethered to reality, you can still do all the things you need to in the real world and have the advantages that VR would offer.

Not necessarily. AR glasses will always have field of view limitations and cannot subsume VR's unique usecases, and at least for the next 15 years, will be behind VR in clarity.

I do think AR will be several times bigger overall, but we shouldn't assume that AR is going to do everything VR does but better - it just doesn't work that way.

btoned t1_j1chgzk wrote on December 23, 2022 at 7:28 AM

Why Apple over Meta? Metas hardware thus far is pretty modern and up to snuff with Apple esque aesthetics.

It also makes sense from a business move; pivoting their social network into a 3D space.

My guess is because Meta has taken heat with privacy and somehow you have the perspective that Apple isn't in the data or tracking game. 😝

UniversalMomentum t1_j18bu6r wrote on December 22, 2022 at 12:19 PM

I think their dreams of digital worlds appeals to a broad audience, but the reality of the tech only appeals to a niche audience. Its pretty far from being immersive enough to warrant all the inability to interact with real life or all your other apps.

Like how do you do your homework WHILE playing Minecraft and watching a movie if you have a display over your eyes vs a monitor or two? The world wants to multitask a lot more than it wants VR, imo.

DarthBuzzard t1_j18j8bl wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:32 PM

> Like how do you do your homework WHILE playing Minecraft and watching a movie if you have a display over your eyes vs a monitor or two?

Pretty simple really: You simulate as many virtual displays as you want in any position/configuration you want. Thus making VR actually superior than even the best PC setup for multi-tasking.

That's not really viable today though. Comfort, resolution, tracking, input - these all need large improvements first, but eventually it will out-PC a PC.

MilkshakeBoy78 t1_j18yxhy wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:32 PM

i just use the multiple desktops on windows on one monitor.

ihateshadylandlords t1_j18s71o wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:44 PM

The Metaverse is the answer to a question nobody’s asking. The producers of metaverses have to sell the masses on the idea of it. Clearly, they’ve failed to do that so far.

DEFINITELY_NOT_PETE t1_j18tcxn wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:52 PM

The problem is what is the fucking point?

It’s like if Xbox was just a game lobby. Like why would you hang out there

aVRAddict t1_j1ab0iz wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:46 PM

Because social VR is great. VRchat proves this.

OkSatisfaction9850 t1_j18i0cm wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:21 PM

It causes dizziness and motion sickness in some people with vestibular and ear problems. Apart from all other issues

ThrowThrow117 t1_j1b0mad wrote on December 22, 2022 at 11:44 PM

I love playing the first person shooter Onward but, yeah, it always gives me a slight motion sickness feeling. I try to chop my feet a bit when moving. I'm usually pretty good with motion sickness so it must be unbearable for many people.

ActonofMAM t1_j18i6f9 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:22 PM

I own a Quest 2, and I don't use it much simply because the front-heavy weight of the thing gets uncomfortable quickly. No matter how carefully I adjust the straps. For a 30 or 45 minute stint at Beat Saber, that isn't as noticeable because I'm moving around and putting out adrenaline. Just sitting still and doing something (Wander, Bigscreen, etc) gets physically unpleasant fast.

Insert your own 'Zuck as Mr. Data' joke here as an explanation of why Meta doesn't think this is a problem.

joshikus t1_j193onv wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:04 PM

There are 3rd party straps that are a solution to this, from brands like Kiwi and BoboVR. Some as cheap as $40. Great solution, and I'm glad that Oculus/FB/Meta has designed such hardware that allows for things like this (looking at you, Sony).

ActonofMAM t1_j195eqb wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:15 PM

I have looked into those, especially the ones that sensibly include a place to put a battery at the back. Combines counter-weight and increased operating time. But I haven't decided yet if I like the content enough to invest more money in it.

ShredManyGnar t1_j194ti6 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:11 PM

Big fan of “the climb” myself. The tech is absolutely still in its youth and i hope to god zuck isnt the primary pioneer of its evolution because fuck that guy, but the potential for growth is 100% there

sdric t1_j18ty1s wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:57 PM

Metaverse is a glorified and over-monetized MMO without any relevant or interesting content, touted to tech-illiterate, overeager investors that desperately wanted to jump on "the next big thing".

dogonix OP t1_j17qd06 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:33 AM

NB: This is a repost . The initial post was removed as it was missing a "submission statement".

The concept of the metaverse has gained significant attention in recent years, with many speculating about its potential to revolutionize, in the future, the way we interact and engage with the world and with each other. However, there are still questions about whether it is more hype than substance, and whether it will truly live up to its promises.

One argument in favor of the metaverse is it can offer immersive and augmented experiences stimulating our senses in a way classical settings may not be able to achieve. This makes it a good fit for certain activities such as attending live events with a sense of presence and interacting with remote friends and co-workers in a way that feels like in-person meetings.

But the key questions are:

Does it make sense for people to be in an immersive 3D world for all regular day-to-day activities?

For example, having to enter a virtual branch of a bank to make a wire transfer would not make sense. The same is true for tasks such as stock trading, booking flights, summoning a ride-sharing service, … to only cite a few.

If we consider the argument that the metaverse is not only about VR but also about a blended version of virtual and physical worlds through augmented reality (AR), will it then be more likely to get a wide adoption in the future?

There is room for augmented experiences where not completely disconnecting from reality may be more effective than fully immersing ourselves in a virtual world. For example, learning the piano could be done by using a real instrument and having visual guidance overlayed on the keyboard, showing which key should be hit next

Still, some questions remain for AR:

Do we see a future where this will be our preferred primary way of interacting with the world for all day-to-day activities?

Will our delicate brains be able to handle a permanent visual stimulation directly projected onto our eyes?

ShredManyGnar t1_j194g5o wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:09 PM

Last question is a silly note to end on. Like, in what world would the visual stimulation be permanent

Luc2992 t1_j19fo9r wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:22 PM

The only ones "hyping" the metaverse were Zuckerberg and his company. I've never seen or heard of anyone else taking an interest.

kronicfeld t1_j18fe2n wrote on December 22, 2022 at 12:56 PM

No, no, I'm sure that *this time* it's going to be just like The Oasis and that they're not actively exploiting the delusions of nostalgia-casters who sleep with Ready Player One under their pillows

TaskForceCausality t1_j18mifl wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:59 PM

It’s like any other new media technology: if Zuck can get porn to work on it , they’re set. If not, Metaverse is deader than Elvis.

[deleted] t1_j1ab4f3 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:46 PM

[removed]

Yung_Corneliois t1_j191qof wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:51 PM

Besides paid advertising I haven’t seen any “hype”. There isn’t a single person I’ve seen who has referred to the metaverse in a positive light lol. Everyone expected it to be the failure that it is.

Dreadriot16 t1_j19bjx2 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:55 PM

So funny that tech companies are like ‘We are shocked no one has any interest in this useless, poorly built thing from a terribly invasive and greedy company!’ And the other 7.9billion of us are like ???

M4DM1ND t1_j19c225 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:58 PM

What hype? What substance? The metaverse looks like something hosted on a Wii in 2007.

aVRAddict t1_j1abg2b wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:48 PM

That's horizons the metaverse isn't out yet.

03ifa014 t1_j19hi9l wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:33 PM

If this metaverse doesn't have a way to exist in it wholly, as in, a way to incorporate real physical interraction with all of your limbs, it's useless. The whole point of the metaverse is to provide you a 'matrix' of sorts to escape into. If it's just a virtual world with goggles that make you nauseous half of the time, then it's a waste of time and money. I can have more fun without the virtual reality aspect.

MpVpRb t1_j19isrk wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:42 PM

Mostly agreed

Many of the proposed uses of VR seem silly and not very well thought out. In the article, shopping is discussed. If you know the part number and simply want to order it, today's systems work fine. For things like clothes, you want to see them in person, feel their texture and more importantly, feel the fit. There is no substitute for physical reality in this case

I can easily imagine industrial and scientific uses for the tech. It's already useful in games and I imagine artists will find a use for it, but a lot of what's proposed by its supporters seems silly

Vespaeelio t1_j18rnco wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:40 PM

I think to begin with the name should change it just doesn’t sound right or appealing

jormungandrsjig t1_j18ytxq wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:31 PM

Zuckerbot watched Ready Player One and thought he could be our James Halliday. ha ha ha!

AzulMage2020 t1_j193e2w wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:02 PM

There is precious little substance and even less hype, so "No".

mckili026 t1_j19fzli wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:24 PM

This is truth; there is no hype. There is even less substance

_m0s_ t1_j19gos8 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:28 PM

I think the problem is every value it provides is much easier to attain using other existing technologies which also happen to be more mature and more content rich. It is more effort to shop using VR, it is more effort to browse using the VR and more effort to do most productivity things or chat with others. There is really a very narrow slice of experiences where VR experience/immersion/stereoscopic view has enough value where you’d want to put up with the effort associated.

aVRAddict t1_j1abl9p wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:49 PM

Tf you talking about using VR is easy you just put on the headset. Takes me 10 seconds to set it up.

_m0s_ t1_j1acvyr wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:58 PM

Try to make a purchase in VR, or launching a movie and then do the same on your phone. Time how how long it takes and come back... don't forget to include the 10 seconds it takes to put on the headset and the time it takes to pull the phone from your pocket.

Besides the time efficiency, using your phone is lower effort because your don't need to move your head or hands around to perform actions in the UI.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1diafy wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM

Most people consider chatting on a phone/PC to be not all that fulfilling and certainly not rich. This is why despite a larger barrier/commitment, socializing in VR has many benefits to doing so over regular devices.

_m0s_ t1_j1ebq0c wrote on December 23, 2022 at 5:57 PM

I agree. I am a VR user of many years now and love it for what it is and certainly it fulfills many of my interests. I think it has its place, but it is a very narrow limited space that is not replacing much more than what it does day. No matter how good VR gets only a few people would want to grocery shop or go to a bar in VR. I’m not saying VR or Metaverse don’t have its users, but with regards to fulfillment demand of immersive experiences I’m pretty sure it is a much smaller market than what it is being marketed for and certainly a very tiny market of all digital interactions. This is like comparing GTA online players to all other internet consumers. Metaverse is failing, because they put the bar too high and tried to sell it to consumers who don’t want it and to investors who don’t understand it, made too much buzz for what its worth and in few years when investors don’t see return on investment it will live slow death into a small community project.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1ejny9 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM

> No matter how good VR gets only a few people would want to grocery shop or go to a bar in VR.

Grocery shop? Sure, but I think there's mass appeal in going to public venues in VR. A bar specifically, I don't know, but think of all the other public venues and combine that with the state of the world being one where most people are frequently not able to meet up with friends because distance is vast, money is tight, and life gets in the way.

VR gets rid of all of that. I mean you still need the device, but once you have it you go to infinite destinations, hopefully within a few handfuls of seconds as headsets get faster/more mature.

And as VR does mature, there will simply be this gut feeling that you are actually in another place, actually with a person face to face, actually having these experiences. It won't feel as physical as the real thing, but it will be so far beyond a videocall or phonecall, that it will sell itself easily on the value of the presence VR brings.

nknecht1 t1_j19kexd wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:52 PM

Seems lately there’s no longer hype and never was substance. Hence the declining hype

untitled01 t1_j19l8f7 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:57 PM

For the VR thing? Yes. It has its use cases but not for massive adoption/daily use.

But a digital overlayed reality on top of our world accessed through wearables? Sure.

Like digital animated clothing, brand experiences, digital assets, custom ads… basically interactive elements scattered through our physical world only accessible through devices I pretty much believe it will happen.

Besides that there are also use cases for good in this scenario as in augmenting senses for people that don’t have them or lack some of (vision, hearing, …), or even have virtual companion pets or imaginary friends to fight solitude.

A million ways for “metaverse” to be a force for good.

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j19mdg8 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:04 PM

I enjoy VR gaming, but shopping, working and socializing in VR doesn’t appeal to me.

Imagine if a workplace tried to mandate VR collaboration, and it made 20% of their employees dizzy or nauseated?

I’m sure there are are some killer AR/VR use cases out there, but until the hardware is as affordable, portable, and easy to use as smartphones, very few people will be interested.

My guess is that the technology required to make the metaverse mainstream is 20 years out, and even then it may never grow beyond niche applications.

aVRAddict t1_j1abwfw wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:51 PM

Few people get sick with new headsets. 20 years is an insane amount of time we will have bci by then. Expect tiny vr glasses within a couple of years.

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j1am2b3 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 10:00 PM

If there were going to be “tiny” VR headsets in two years, they would already be in testing or in use for high-end applications. I haven’t heard of any advancements that would suggest that radical miniaturization is imminent.

Maybe 20 years is too far out, but minimum 10 years based on where we are now (for VR. some AR headsets are already pretty small). I hope I’m wrong, btw.

BCI in 20 years? Maybe, but wires inside the skull will likely be required for anything beyond very basic interactions, which could limit adoption.

Lots of people still get sick from VR (survey from 2020):

13.7% frequently feel sick
19.1% sometimes feel sick
24.9% rarely
42.2% never

Bottom line is that around 20% of users get sick enough that they can’t really use VR. This is no big deal for gaming, but it could be a big problem for workplace or social applications.

aVRAddict t1_j1amjp0 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 10:03 PM

Look up the prototypes meta is making they have glasses size headsets in development. HTC is announcing a small pancake lens headset in two weeks. Also 2020 is old for that type or survey and they would be basing it off of shit first gen headsets. Run that again with only new headsets and it will be a quarter of that a most.

riderxc t1_j1a2one wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:51 PM

AR will take off in about a decade. VR will be for kids and gamers. Normal adults don’t have time for that. For example if I’m using Facebook, I’m also looking after kids and cooking dinner etc aka multitasking. If I had to amerce myself, I wouldn’t use it.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1diizx wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:36 PM

I mean it's very obvious that VR will take off before AR, and it's pretty obvious that it will be for adults too.

Normal adults have time for gaming/surfing the web/TV, so they will have plenty of time for VR too.

riderxc t1_j1dkvru wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:53 PM

Depends on your definition of “Take off”. I could see VR been as popular as say Sony PlayStation. But it will never be an iPhone. AR one day can be an iPhone.
VR will never take off with parents, and no there isn’t any time for gaming, I can only watchTV or go on my phone but I can’t commit to gaming.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dmq7x wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:07 PM

There's also PCs and TVs. Those are inbetween the console and smartphone market.

That's likely where VR will end up.

> VR will never take off with parents, and no there isn’t any time for gaming, I can only watchTV or go on my phone but I can’t commit to gaming.

Well consider there are over 3 billion gamers, and a lot of those are adults. So it would seem that a large amount of adults do have time for gaming.

As for parents, it really depends on the point of life they are in. If they are more elderly, then at that point, they probably will want to use it to connect with the rest of the family without being physically present.

riderxc t1_j1dryk6 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:44 PM

That’s true, could be good for connecting to family. For the record, I own an Oculus and never use it. PlayStation is about 4 billion a year in sales and iPhone is about 150 billion a year. To be “the next big thing” you have to be at iPhone usership, personally I think it will only reach around Playstation user ship. But neither of us are right or wrong, that’s what futurology is all about.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1dtdy9 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:54 PM

Smartphones are the only form of technology at that level of popularity. Everything else is much less popular, even TVs.

So I don't think 'the next big thing' has to be as popular as smartphones to be honest.

I expect AR will get to that stage, but with VR taking off before AR, I can also see it being 'the next big thing' on the same level as something like PCs.

The reason why is because unlike a console, VR has many more uses. It's effectively a general purpose computing platform.

riderxc t1_j1dx09s wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:19 PM

Just like the article says, what would you do in VR? Amazon shopping-no, banking-no, stocks-no, calendar-no, booking flights-no, looking something up-no. These are the most popular things to do. It isn’t worth putting on headset to do everyday tasks.

[deleted] t1_j1e00wt wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:39 PM

[deleted]

DarthBuzzard t1_j1e03xo wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:40 PM

The goal of VR is not to take every single one of these things and to put them into VR, to completely VR-ify them, but instead to provide an eventually better multi-tasking computing interface than a PC allows.

All of those things, you'd do normally, but instead of physical monitors, it would be with virtual monitors. Where you can have 3 or 5 monitors set up how you want in any angle/position without taking up physical space (I can only fit one on my desk), and have different configurations for different needs to instantly switch between. Like one for work, one for media (just one giant IMAX screen), one for casual browsing etc.

Some things may be VR-ified like Amazon shopping, but only as a hybrid experience. Start out with a 2D virtual screen experience like normal, but have the ability to pull out items in 3D to see them in full scale, to try on clothes etc.

Full VR-centric experiences will need to provide a reason to switch the interface entirely into VR. With maturity of the tech, this would satisfy the needs of working from home, online schooling, and all forms of entertainment and many forms of recreation that we don't really think of as entertainment (like socializing, travel, exercise, and health).

riderxc t1_j1e1ln5 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 4:49 PM

Personally I don’t think any of those things will take off without AR. I would never go into VR, for a multi monitor experience. No company will require their employees to work in VR. The only way I can see it happening is with AR.

DarthBuzzard t1_j1ej2ve wrote on December 23, 2022 at 6:47 PM

AR/VR are quickly converging into the same device so that's easily accounted for. I don't just mean a toggle between the two so you have to choose, but the full blending of the two so you aren't really in one state or another but have a mix of the two.

When I say AR will take off after VR, I specifically mean optical AR through transparent glasses. That's a much harder physical problem to solve.

Impossible-Charity-4 t1_j1b4n0n wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:14 AM

Anytime I hear “multi” or “meta” in the context of a “universe”, I ignore it.

SuperNintendad t1_j1bntgo wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:43 AM

I find it interesting that what’s happening with the Metaverse hype in the media is essentially a repeat of the hype ~2008 for Second Life.

So many companies pumped money into Second Life, and it had a tremendous amount of press for something that ultimately most people were not that interested in. Concerts, major brands, and real estate in Second Life was written about constantly.

The idea of a massively popular ‘Metaverse’ in the sense of a Ready Player One style mashup of pop culture and entertainment, movies, music, live events, concerts, etc. where people can meet and play together already exists. It’s called Fortnite.

There’s not a lot of work happening there yet, but Zoom seems to be handling that aspect of virtual life until people just really want to experience 3D floating torso ping pong in their budget meetings.

FuturologyBot t1_j17sjvo wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:02 AM

The following submission statement was provided by /u/dogonix:

NB: This is a repost . The initial post was removed as it was missing a "submission statement".

The concept of the metaverse has gained significant attention in recent years, with many speculating about its potential to revolutionize, in the future, the way we interact and engage with the world and with each other. However, there are still questions about whether it is more hype than substance, and whether it will truly live up to its promises.

One argument in favor of the metaverse is it can offer immersive and augmented experiences stimulating our senses in a way classical settings may not be able to achieve. This makes it a good fit for certain activities such as attending live events with a sense of presence and interacting with remote friends and co-workers in a way that feels like in-person meetings.

But the key questions are:

Does it make sense for people to be in an immersive 3D world for all regular day-to-day activities?

For example, having to enter a virtual branch of a bank to make a wire transfer would not make sense. The same is true for tasks such as stock trading, booking flights, summoning a ride-sharing service, … to only cite a few.

If we consider the argument that the metaverse is not only about VR but also about a blended version of virtual and physical worlds through augmented reality (AR), will it then be more likely to get a wide adoption in the future?

There is room for augmented experiences where not completely disconnecting from reality may be more effective than fully immersing ourselves in a virtual world. For example, learning the piano could be done by using a real instrument and having visual guidance overlayed on the keyboard, showing which key should be hit next

Still, some questions remain for AR:

Do we see a future where this will be our preferred primary way of interacting with the world for all day-to-day activities?

Will our delicate brains be able to handle a permanent visual stimulation directly projected onto our eyes?

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zsfutk/the_metaverse_more_hype_than_substance/j17qd06/

[deleted] t1_j17tnm4 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:17 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j17u83d wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:25 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j17ubsi wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:26 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j18def7 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 12:36 PM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j18f68p wrote on December 22, 2022 at 12:54 PM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j18hq41 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:18 PM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j18qafy wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:29 PM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j18rpzb wrote on December 22, 2022 at 2:40 PM

[removed]

OlleyatPurdue t1_j18xx21 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 3:25 PM

Horizon worlds, bah. The only horizon I am interested in is the one where you fight robot dinosaurs with a bow arrow.

[deleted] t1_j194ub3 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:11 PM

[removed]

V3LKAN t1_j196gwu wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:22 PM

They took a great concept out of ready player one and took a giant shit on it...first problem is not everyone wants to drop 100-300 dolars on a vr set...this to be sucessfull you need to make vr technology affordable to everyone so that you can make the next move witch is keeping the people intresting in coming back and not just to waste some time...its a great idea really but it lacks real world aplication

rallen1st t1_j19f2ri wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:18 PM

I'm starting to think maybe so... much of what's being promised won't be available until sometime in the unknown future.

Shankar_0 t1_j19hx7j wrote on December 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM

Just replace that question mark with a period and you've answered your own question.

[deleted] t1_j19ovnd wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:21 PM

[removed]

siskulous t1_j19pt3x wrote on December 22, 2022 at 6:26 PM

So here's my thought on The Metaverse: The Zuck was about 5 years too late. VR Chat already gave us what he wants to sell and doesn't cost a damn thing other than the hardware to access it. Why would we pay for what he's peddling when someone else already did it better and gave it to us for free?

LollygaggingLoafer t1_j19x4xy wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:14 PM

While a bought an Occulus and LOVE VR, the headset is just too uncomfortable for me to wear. So until something more physically comfortable to wear comes out, I’m not using it.

Ray_Pingeau t1_j19xc5k wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:15 PM

When you can make your avatar have your proportions and try on clothes online, more people will understand the benefits of the metaverse.

[deleted] t1_j1a22os wrote on December 22, 2022 at 7:47 PM

[deleted]

chameleondoesitagain t1_j1a4u19 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:05 PM

Metaverse only gets promoted on fallen reddit lol makes sense

[deleted] t1_j1a8y2q wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:32 PM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j1ae6f6 wrote on December 22, 2022 at 9:06 PM

[removed]

NormalHumanCreature t1_j1agesx wrote on December 22, 2022 at 9:21 PM

Just like Raid shadowlegends. It's just pushing ads.

[deleted] t1_j1altdr wrote on December 22, 2022 at 9:58 PM

[removed]

critic2029 t1_j1am0nv wrote on December 22, 2022 at 9:59 PM

This is the classic Hype Cycle, welcome to the Trough of Disillusionment.

Web 3 is very real; and will happen with or without VR/AR. Pointing to VR/AR today and saying that’s the metaverse is like pointing to a html page in 1994 and calling it the internet.

[deleted] t1_j1aztdd wrote on December 22, 2022 at 11:38 PM

[removed]

runefar t1_j1b33si wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:03 AM

Things like the metaverse are much more ongoing projects tbh. They shouldn't be viewed as completed aspects but rather projects that are in development and will be built upon with different aspects of the technology being built into and integrated into them. They are much more like test ground of how to integrate new technology as well as eventually higher aspects of graphics into a larger aspect through different aspects such as automation, different forms of social interaction and other conseus mechanism. While clearly the graphics in them are often lackluster this is why it should be viewed as more complicated to judge them because in some sense it isn't a project the creator are just building but we are involved in building too

[deleted] t1_j1b4mu5 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 12:14 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j1bbsca wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:09 AM

[removed]

Dewoco t1_j1bgk5x wrote on December 23, 2022 at 1:47 AM

I think there is a significant sleight of hand going on when Metaverse, a trademarked and walled garden, is spruiked with boundless potential of VR utopianism.

This is not the infinite digital frontier, this is e-commerce privatized by rent-seeking middleware.

[deleted] t1_j1bn92q wrote on December 23, 2022 at 2:39 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j1bq2yc wrote on December 23, 2022 at 3:01 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_j1c51m6 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 5:11 AM

[removed]

SCUSKU t1_j1cfzrm wrote on December 23, 2022 at 7:09 AM

Astronaut 1: It's all hype?

Astronaut 2: It always has been.

[deleted] t1_j1cjyh2 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 8:00 AM

[removed]

SeparateAd5914 t1_j1jfmfo wrote on December 24, 2022 at 9:08 PM

The metaverse is AR… it has to be easy to integrate into our lives today.

Yayasadeeq t1_j1llgnq wrote on December 25, 2022 at 10:52 AM

There is no doubt, the Metaverse is one of the most amazing technological innovations that provide an immersive experience using digital technology. The Mars Metaverse, for example, allows users to enjoy every activity that is related to inhabitants' hobbies and sports such as camping, Basketball, drawing, performance, etc. As such users can enter The Mars Studio to design, build, customize and publish UGC in-game items as NFTs which are tradable. $MRST will be listed in MEXC and there is a chance to earn free tokens by participating in the M-Day future event.

igFrostt t1_j1tydb3 wrote on December 27, 2022 at 10:54 AM

That's fantastic. I've already begun to amass my $MRST tokens. It also gives a user the option to get a lease thanks to the use of a smart contract built on a blockchain. Additionally, a user of $MRST might gain incentives for taking part in regular activities like hobbies and sports.

dokicrypto t1_j1n453n wrote on December 25, 2022 at 7:44 PM

The future of Metaverse lays in the hands of GameFi and my instincts won't be hypothetical and to cap it all MEXC always list moonshots. MRST is creating a global metaverse game platform based on the theme of the red planet. Players can enjoy almost every activity inside the Colony of Mars, such as owning real estate, playing sports, and interacting with others.

kamalcaptain t1_j1nu1q0 wrote on December 25, 2022 at 11:13 PM

The world of metaverse has gotten alot of leap from many big tech giants industries owing to its vast potential benefits to the digital world. Project like Mars Metaverse, aiming to become a leading game- focused platform on the metaverse ecosystem are worth looking into. The ecosystem is designed to ensure that all the users of the platform can earn MRST through play-and-earn (PAE) system. It's getting listed on MEXC come Dec 26 and will be added into my bags.

Natural81man t1_j1oncpr wrote on December 26, 2022 at 3:33 AM

Well articulated, however time alone will tell if metaverse is a hype, let's keep our fingers crossed. Mars metaverse giving me reason to believe metaverse is a substance, with it's utilities. It's beginning to get traction as, it will soon be listed on MEXC and okx has already listed.

ActonofMAM t1_j1opg71 wrote on December 26, 2022 at 3:52 AM

Quest 2 owner and user. Some of the room scale apps where you move around vigorously "in" VR space are fantastic to use. Things like Beat Saber and Supernatural.
But the ones where your actual body sits or stands still while you "move" in VR are uncomfortable for me in two ways. One, massive motion sickness when the eyes and the inner ears have conflicting data. And two, being relatively still makes the headache and neck aches from a pound of electronics strapped to your face very obvious.

Lumpy_Dish_6978 t1_j1u355l wrote on December 27, 2022 at 11:57 AM

I'll call it more than our expectations. Finally, I've found another metaverse-based project on Mexc called $MRST that aims to succeed our dreams! A user can wholeheartedly design his own clothes or structures through "The Mars Studio." He can also expose them as either NFTs or in-game items (UGC items).

panconquesofrito t1_j19be6h wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:54 PM

People, specially males would love for this to be as immersive as pictures make it look, but it is not. However, if a company cracks that then yes, people would only be in “reality” to eat, shit, and sleep.

RedditAllPro t1_j1acgwd wrote on December 22, 2022 at 8:55 PM

People want it. They just don’t know it yet and the tech isn’t there just yet to match expectations.

Comments