All modern VR headsets are going to have head tracking - even for something as simple as outputting a monitor signal, you need to have it occupy a point in 3D space to avoid motion sickness and to let the user naturally look at it up close, etc.
If you're going for no expense spared, the Apple Vision Pro is probably the best device that does exactly this. The Beyond 2 from this video is also good, but it only works in conjunction with a PC, it's not a computing device. Otherwise, there's the Quest 3.
Bigscreen as a company isn't really looking to expand the VR market, it's just making an enthusiast-grade product aimed at people who know exactly what they want. Quest focuses on being a smartphone-like device with an integrated ecosystem, while Beyond is more of a PC peripheral for using Bigscreen the app, video content, social VR and some simulators. The audience for these things is small, but pretty dedicated, so it makes sense to offer a high-end solution targeting just them.
> "But it's good for you!" they scream, and the word good is, in their head, something they've decided meets a goal or end result that I should be pursuing.
That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position?
The way minimum guaranteed income would benefit you is twofold. One way is similar to how any other tax payments that don't benefit you directly provide a safety margin - I've never had a house fire, but I pay for services that cover my fire department because I know that if I'm ever in that situation, they will help me. I'm not in poverty, but my money subsidizes poverty benefits, and if I ever get in that situation, it will help me too.
The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty and contribute far more than they otherwise would. Being poor is insanely expensive, and once you have more liabilities than assets, they tend to explode and become completely unsustainable. Poor people can't relocate (or even live anywhere) for better opportunities; they can't get education and will often remain low-wage, unprofessional workers; they can't afford healthcare (in the US) and will leave illnesses untreated until they can barely do anything at all, or die. Fixing any of these three leads to more income for businesses and more tax money for the government.
For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love portraying any form of welfare as letting people live in luxury for nothing. Minimum income, as it is proposed, doesn't come anywhere close to being something you can live your whole life off of. It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily - it's money you pay debts off, money to educate yourself, money to cure yourself - not what you live off. That's why it's so infuriating to hear people double down time and time again about how America's most hated class are all just lazy, bloated slobs, because in this hypothetical world, they have the audacity to receive a couple thousand dollars in benefits.
>That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position?
It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things.
You don't even seem to be aware that I want different things. "But but but! How could you not want wonderful European-style welfare" I just don't. Saying "but you should want them because you're like me and I want them"... I'm not like you. I couldn't be like you if I tried, and I'm not inclined to try. You saying that I "benefit" from these things indicates you think I "receive good things" from them... but I don't receive any benefit or good thing, those are not things I want. Benefits aren't objective. They are subjective. Absolutely, undeniably subjective.
When you make it sound like they are objective, you are lying to yourself. Lying so badly to yourself that when you lose elections, you are confused and angry about it. "How are they brainwashed into going against their own self-interests?!?!?!" you oxymoron about. No, other people just have different interest than you. It's impossible to go against your own self-interests (short of coercion... even then, one might argue that you're still doing so, to avoid the blackmail/torture/whatever).
>The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty
I grew up on foodstamps. I would have preferred starving. I want nothing from you. Your charity, however well-intentioned you believe it to be, is toxic and demeaning, and you refuse the evidence of your own eyes when you see it fail to work as you believe it would. I do not wish to pay for anyone else's foodstamps... they're better off figuring out how to survive for themselves.
>For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love
It should at least occur to you that when someone like me can't explain things to you such that you're able to see our point of view, that other more regrettable (for both of us) futures await.
>It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily
Safety is illusory. Chasing it is futile and even shameful.
>That's why it's so infuriating
The fury of people who want safety nets is pathetic. You should use the word "frustrating", you don't sound capable of true fury.
> It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things.
No, you weren't pointing that out. Disagreeing with a value system doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding or representing it fairly. If the best you took away from the discourse is that 'the ominous they are telling you it's good because that's what they're saying', you were never arguing in good faith. You never had to agree with the points I'm making, but if you want to make an argument against them, you have to make targeted attacks against those arguments, not indefensible caricatures.
The rest of your comment looks big, it looks content-rich, it looks like there's so much to say. In reality, you said basically nothing. You're not putting up arguments or logical reasoning, just a chain of assertions and accusations. The fact that you went down to argue semantics ("true fury") or trying to bring me personally into this while letting the direct, accusatory points I made fly right over shows that you never had the intention of arguing them. It's not just about value systems - these systems have to be defensible. They have to rely on fact. People can disagree in interpreting the facts, but objective reality comes first before subjective feelings. You don't have any of that, you just try to quickly dismiss it at the beginning as being just inherently irreconcilable and impossible to address, without saying why or even trying.
There's a side that can look at actual data of what happens to the wellbeing of people and communities, or the objective benefits and drawbacks of welfare, and make a conclusion out of it - right or wrong, but at least well-intentioned. And then there's a side that has already decided on what's right and will never yield, like in a religion. Where I live, the first side had set up a small-scale, limited UBI trial to conduct research and see if it's a worthy investment or a waste of money. Then, the other side got elected and shut it down immediately - they had already known which is the 'right' option from their ideology, they didn't need no pesky science or research to tell them what was right.
Suppose it'd be meaningless to quote my comment above, for the reasons I've outlined and for that matter, just because anyone else can scroll a few inches and see for themselves. You're oblivious.
>Disagreeing with a value system doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding or representing it fairly.
It means that I do not care. If my values are secondary to your own, then I no longer wish to participate, and I will vote with those who promise to stop this nonsense. And guess what? Those people are winning elections and your nonsense will never be implemented.
>There's a side that can look at actual data of what happens to the wellbeing of people
You're already functionally dead, your entire civilization. Your well-being is irrelevant.
>or the objective benefits
There is no such thing as "objective benefit". Either you want something, or you don't. I don't want this.
To add on what the other person said, the rich getting rich can indeed directly lead to the poor getting poorer. Money is influence, and especially in the US, a sufficient amount of money can buy anything. As the ultra-rich category of people accumulate more wealth, together they become the most important bloc to serve. Hell, you guys just directly cut taxes from the rich and raised on the poorest - what's that but not 'poor getting poorer'?
But the thing is that you don't need to take Nat Geo-level photographs to be considered the owner and sole creator of the photograph. I can pull out my phone right now and press one button - and I'll be the rightful owner of whatever comes out on the other end. The resulting photo will be produced because of settings that were set automatically (with no intervention or any required knowledge of what any of them do), and run through several image processing algorithms (that very few people understand or even give thought to). Point being - why is any near-zero interaction with a camera enough to be considered proper authorship, but every level of interaction with gAI never authorship, regardless of what is done?
> They didn't create a market in this case. They created a product, which is the Apple Watch.
I think this is the biggest disagreement point between you and the other poster. Whether it constitutes a new market is up for debate, but one can definitely argue that hardware and software that interfaces with iOS devices can be considered a market in and of itself, considering that there are literal billions of iOS devices worldwide.
It would be one thing if iOS was a limited-scope, standalone product. But it's not - a large portion of its value comes from working in conjunction with other, non-Apple software (and to a certain extent, hardware).
Now, in this segment, it's undeniable that Apple has constructed a web of their own solutions over iOS, and consistently gives themselves preferential treatment to ensure that other products have limited, if any, functionality.
This is certainly legal right now, at least in the US. But I don't think it's right or that it serves the consumers' interests. It's very similar to manufacturers of all sorts of physical devices freaking out about third-party repairs, parts, modifications and so on. It even has all the same marketing points about how anything without the explicit megacorp blessing is automatically tainted and unsafe, regardless of what it is.
If you like it, use it. Why not let other people augment the ecosystem? If Apple allowed Pebble to get full permissions and it all turned out to be the extremely unsafe, buggy disaster that everyone here chooses to portray it as, then you can still buy an Apple Watch. In what way does shutting out the competition benefit you?
How many users do you think call Apple everyday to complain about issues with their third party, knockoff AirPods lookalikes? Could you imagine why Apple could be protective of the user experience of their hardware and sensitive to that user experience being compromised by poorly implemented or nonfunctional peripherals? For every Pebble user, how many people might buy ripoff Apple Watches?
Like, individual websites might do their own weird takes and have their own design systems which are mistaken for 'material design', but I don't think you can fault Google for making text boxes too similar to buttons.
I've played other factory-building games, but not Factorio, so I'm not familiar with the bus-building paradigm. I feel like you're saying that buses would incentivize bad practices, but at the same time I don't see what would make them inherently bad. Whenever I saw screenshots of Factorio, I thought that buses were more of a logistics tool, a way to cable-manage the delivery of stuff from one place to another. Is this wrong? I feel like, if you have more consumers than producers (and end up having to rely on buffering), then you've got a big problem regardless of whether you have a bus or not - a sufficiently long belt from an ore deposit etc could replicate the big-buffer problem in the same way. I don't think I'd use buses, I like a bit of chaos, but still, I'm not sure if they're that bad.
Buffer is bad precisely because it increases the lag between having a gap in provision, and that gap being obvious to the player.
With no buffering, as soon as your demand for steel is greater than than production of steel, then the bottleneck is immediate and obvious. The solution is also immediate and obvious: Build more steel.
Buffering, in particular belt buffering, and in particular busses, contribute to mask this issue. There can be a great delay between increasing consumption above production, and so the root cause can be very hidden. It may also be that the ultimate root cause is that steel production is low because it's limited on how much iron ore it gets. If everything is bussed, then it can be hours before resource constraints are hit, by which point it's very hard to see what's happened to cause the shortage, and also by which time the factory may have expanded further.
It also constributes to see-saw production, where-by a shortage in one area causes a pause, which allievates the root cause shortage for a while by backing up other production. The longer the lag between cause and effect, the greater the banding effect, further masking the root cause.
A bus also encourages bottom-up, which further encourages massive over-consumption of base resources. If you start building green chip production and bussing it, the bus may will fill and buffer, making it look like you've got plenty of green chips. In turn, as the green chip production stops, it'll look like you've got plenty of iron plates. You'll build all your malls and other production, satisfied as you build each that they run fine and are not over-consuming.
Only when later everything starts to run at once you realise that the stuff down the end of the line is getting scant resources, as previously each part was running in isolation before serious amounts were required.
In contrast, a top-down approach involves building the final result first, then at each step building what's needed to feed it. This ensures that there is always enough provision, and everything can be placed to minimise buffer to reduce lag and improve feedback time on problems. It also reduces pollution since any item on a belt represents inventory for which you've paid a pollution cost but not got any final results from yet.
The spaghetti approach can lead to "under-utilised" buildings, such as smelting array that ends up only needing to supply 0.3 of a belt. But in factorio space is almost endless, and there's little to no cost to idle buildings. The power drain of idle assemblers, particular the bare (no module) level 2 buildings you'll likely be building before end-game, is extremely low.
For late game post-rocket, this changes of course. With beacons and level 3 assemblers with modules, the idle draw is significant, and you may want to optimise ratios and look to eliminate how many assemblers you run idle. ( That said, power is almost non-issue in 2.0 with nuclear power being much easier to run efficiently than previously, so the large solar fields aren't really needed anymore. )
Busses have a strong visual appeal, but unlike "cable management", there's no airflow to consider in factorio. A messy spaghetti base isn't inherently inefficient. It doesn't affect productivity to just run short belts all over.
The visual temptation of the mega-bus is clearly alluring, it looks good on youtube video guides.
That makes sense. I guess I just had a different approach when I played the other games. The way I organized in other factory games is that the considerations of input and output were things that I thought of upfront - I never eyeballed and then tried to estimate the production speed based on how fast my resources were drained. I might be overplanning, or maybe Factorio encourages a far more chaotic approach, but I always treated factories as black boxes that take X/s of certain items and outputted X/s results. Knowing precisely how many items per second I have on any individual belt is the most essential piece of knowledge to me, so I never relied on buffering and always made sure to build consumer factories that never overwhelmed producer factories. This means that the visual indication of the buffer draining would only signal some building mistake to me, rather than a design mistake.
Isn't "prejudice" a better word? It's the base underlying idea of assuming some bad quality about an individual based on their membership in a group that they can't change. It's just strange for me when one 'ism' out of thousands is taken as the defining form of prejudice. Maybe it's just me, but I find it prevalent in US-centric communities, where racism is the agreed-upon baseline discrimination, from which parallels are drawn to the other forms.
While 'prejudice' is in a way forced to be related to a group, because we suppose it triggered by a perceived pattern, which constitutes a group (but it could be a group of accidentally linked members as opposed to supposedly naturally linked members, as in "race"), the term 'prejudice' means "judging before the ability to express a fair judgement".
> one 'ism' out of thousands ... taken as the defining form of prejudice
It was meant to be specific in this case (in the context of this submission): they look at the median, and go (with fallacy) "look at the median, judge the group"... As you can see, that is not prejudice but bad judgement given samples of the group: that is racism.
When people say "humans are <some fault>" that is bad judgement disregarding the possibility of exceptions, not bad preliminary judgement. It is poor judgement, not prejudice.
I find it especially worth of denunciation not only because it is sloppy thinking (which must be curbed): also, some people may use it as an excuse to remain in avoidable mud. When people say that something "would be necessary", they may avoid the really necessary steps to avoid that something.
If you're going for no expense spared, the Apple Vision Pro is probably the best device that does exactly this. The Beyond 2 from this video is also good, but it only works in conjunction with a PC, it's not a computing device. Otherwise, there's the Quest 3.