Fam if I walk into a cafe and I’m about to order and there is a bathroom that costs money I am going to leave. I get why they are doing this (hint it isn’t just the money), but I’ll be fucked if I’m going to tip them and pay to take a piss too.
It's grim. Obviously twitter still holds sway over a lot of people. And spreading malinformed propaganda is bad.
But it really underlines that anyone with any conscience whatsoever needs to disengage from it. It's not okay for governments to engage with it. And though I don't suggest that capital cares has any sort of conscience, but engaging with it has been increasing in cost and decreasing in benefit. NPR recently left, for example, and saw nearly no impact whatsoever. So the cost of leaving is low.
Ideally people would deny it any money, advertising or otherwise, until it ceases functioning. I suspect Musk will continue to be a delusional asshole for years to come. But at least twitter will be dead and gone.
I find it pretty awesome that instead of doing Remote Code Execution to fuck up someone’s life, they instead exploited it in live broadcast which shows the world how terrible these rootkits that go by the name of “anti cheat” are.
Yep, lemmy isn’t even immune to it. There’s only something like 34k MAU on this side of the fediverse yet we’re still under a constant barrage of misinformation. politics@lemmy.world isn’t any better than reddit’s r/politics in that regard. The mods here, if I’m being generous with my interpretation, labor under the same misguided sense of “impartiality” that allows misinformation to thrive there.
We’ve got one user posting anti-Biden nonsense 24/7 while tossing in just enough “actual” news for plausible deniability… And it works. I don’t even have to name any names, if you’ve been on lemmy for the last year and paying attention to political subs, I guarantee you already know who I’m referring to.
When we talked last, I was talking about the social aspects (crudely understood) of it all - have general mistrust of experts, poor life situation, feelings of, or acutal, social isolation -> find people who seem to have a privileged knowledge others don’t that you agree with, make them your tribe -> have a position in a social group, slowly introducing you to more and more outlandish ideas -> repeat points to recruit others to the tribe and signal social value to said.
So agree totally with learning about how this stuff works from psychology and human weakness POV being a vital starting point. Appreciate it!
This is the interesting part, looking at their list of acquisitions, none of them seems to be generating any revenue. I only know wordpress, simplenote, tumblr and pocketcasts (lifetime user).
As much as I enjoy hating on Apple, their track record popularising niche technology is admittedly pretty good. They made mp3 players mainstream, then everyone else scrambled to catch up. They made smartphones mainstream, then everyone scrambled to catch up. I wouldn’t be surprised if they managed to pull off the same thing with VR/AR. Just don’t mention the Newton.
They also removed the headphone jack from the phone, so it doesn’t really count. Airpods followed the Sony approach: telling your captive audience they will buy the thing or suffer.
Why doesn’t it count? GP asked for an example where post-Job Apple made something mainstream, and the AirPod basically made TWS earbuds and removing jack mainstream (while not necessarily benefits end users). There are gazillion TWS earbuds now ranging from $2 AliExpress special to $400 from audiophile brands, that should count as mainstream.
Whether Apple can make VR headset mainstream or not, that remains to be seen.
Because it relying entirely on the dominance of the iPhone isn’t really a post-Jobs action. It’s actually the exact opposite: relying entirely on something he captained in order to make sales.
By this definition, everything that Apple do will count as relying on the dominance of the iphones because how tight their integration between their products is.
That being said though, just to play devils advocate, she was there since the beginning apparently (at Netscape). So, she actually seems to somewhat deserve it. And she’s well educated too and I get the impression she’s also a good person too
Whereas, you look at the Oracle CEO, and she’s what you expect (donates a lot of money to the right wing, banker, etc)
By the way, not sure if you’re a linux user, but if you were wondering why Redhat is locking down the source code a bit, its probably thanks to oracle too. Oracle Unbreakable Linux was basically just a rebrand of Redhat (I’m guessing they just charge less for support to undercut redhat). It’s not because Redhat are bad for the community or greedy, but because they can’t compete if Oracle screws them that way
To be fair, there are (or were) lots of distros downstream of RHEL marketing themselves as drop-in replacements, not just Oracle. And this move isn’t likely to stop Oracle (and the rest), only make the transition experience less smooth for clients (ultimately all the downstream distros can just rebase off of CentOS Stream instead; they lose “bug for bug” compatibility, but will still largely be drop-in replacements).
I also find it hard to muster any sympathy for IBM of all people, even when their opponent is Oracle (who are the lowest of the low).
I think it is directly related to Oracle, as Oracle literally is just RHEL, with cheaper support (which they can afford to do, because their development costs are tiny compared to RHEL, if they just copy the code every release).
The others I’ve seen used it as a base, but aren’t really competing in the same way. CentOS also wasn’t providing commercial support… Either is Fedora. Commercial / Enterprise support is how Redhat makes money. And that’s how Oracle is planning to make money too
Also, what is wrong with IBM? I don’t recall them doing anything bad for open source. they fought SCO, and have contributed a lot to the community
After doing some Meta/Facebook VR development in my job the lack of popularity made increasingly more sense. In brief, they’re both incredibly incompetent and transparently greedy.
I’m honestly baffled how they could spend so many tens of billions of dollars and have such bad software, it is completely bug ridden. You’ll hit a bug, research it, and find out it’s a major know bug for literal years they haven’t fixed. They care so little that they couldn’t bother to update the Oculus branding to Meta for over 3 years in various software tools and libraries.
Their greed might be more salient aspect preventing adoption, though. They transparently wanted to be the gatekeepers to everything “metaverse” related, a business model that is now explicitly illegal in the EU after years of being merely very sketchy. They are straight up hostile to anyone else trying to implement enterprise or business features. Concrete example: fleet management software, aka MDM. There are third party tools that are cheaper and much more featured than Meta’s solution, but in the last year they’ve pushed hard to kick those third parties out of the ecosystem.
I could go on, but in short nobody in their right mind would build a major business on their ecosystem. They’d rather let Meta burn billions in R&D and come back later. Besides, not even Meta is able to make money in the area now.
I’m beginning to worry that FB’s meta shit has retarded VR’s development (slowed, not pejorative yo) significantly. The stigma of FB in the dev community is substantial and real, and tons of talent that I could recruit for PC driven VR projects (both training work and game stuff) who simply would not touch oculus hardware. It took dwindling job opportunities to drag me into quest dev. HTC had a fantastic opportunity to be a bigger name with the vive but dropped the ball so many times that devs I know kinda shrugged and moved on.
I was hoping that Apple would knock this out of the park. In fact, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in so many ways it’s depressing.
VR will continue, this is not the end. Just a slowdown.
techcrunch.com
Top