I think the fair comparison is: if you’re living someplace with any given level of economic opportunity (and the other things you mention) would you be happier if it was on the water than if it was not.
It seems for you the answer is no, but that’s not necessarily the typical response.
Yeah I get what you’re saying but I am so fed up of articles like this proclaiming x to be the secret to happiness or y to be the cure for mental health issues when the reality is that it is political and socioeconomic economic causes at the root of the majority of problems in this country. If people are mentally unwell, they should be able to access a therapist not told to go take a trip to the beach.
I suspect it’s because they have a near monopoly in high-quality, next-gen sequencing. They’re trying to grow the market for their machines rather than take business from a competitor.
What’s your evidence for massive interest in business markets? I use a quest for gaming, but find the idea of interacting with colleagues for corporate stuff to be just hideous.
I listed one good place for evidence - Zuckerberg's interview. I also have done consulting on such projects for a few of the players. All the big players have extensive groups working on this. For example: Microsoft has bought AR and VR companies and rolled the tech into Teams, and their many AR/VR projects have been business (and military) directed for a long time. NVidia has the Omniverse for 3d content creation and sharing (among other projects).
As far bas as 2016 there were 200_ companies working in this space, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, MS, Sony - and they are not simply trying to make game goggles.
A simple google for this should make it clear to you that the game angle is a tiny slice of what is being pursued, since the game market is tiny compared to the broader uses.
There are already uses for telemedicine, virtual meetings, virtual site inspections, remote education, military, training, flight simulators, geography uses, dangerous environment uses, prototyping, broader healthcare, engineering, music and other events (concerts and other things have been held on various platforms). Digital twin creation and inspection are huge business use cases for all of industry and DoD, with billions a year currently being spent on development of the tech.
>but [I] find the idea of interacting with colleagues
Your experience is not what will drive the industry - and the entire point is to make it seamless. And the uses for AR/VR is so vastly larger than gaming or you in a business meeting that it should be clear that gaming is a tiny slice of the possibilities, and is demonstrably a tiny slice of all the major players working on VR/AR projects and products.
For a tiny intro, start here [1] and chase down links. Or simply look at any of the big companies I listed and search for their AR/VR work - the majority of work is not for gaming.
The real difference is in scale. Automations can be coordinated to produce self-affirming bullshit at a scale that drives real discussion out of view. You already see this on twitter with troll farms and primitive bots. Now it will be a tidal wave
Only management should be able to impose their will on employees and should be able to do so without competition. On the job, and during their “free-time”.
More seriously, imagine where not everyone is required to be in the union and think about how easy it then becomes for management to manipulate the environment to the detriment of union employees until the union is wiped out.
I think your characterization of unions is a propaganda driven falsehood, and your argument ignores the fact that Most people see less and less of the fruits of their labor.
Please tell me, how is one supposed to engage with the "argument" that their personal experience and resulting belief is a "propaganda driven falsehood." That's not an argument, it is pure name calling, and doesn't even make sense as this person seems to be basing their beliefs on direct experience from their own professional life.
1. Not labeling people who disagree with you as “part of a professional managerial class” / people who don’t want to work (propaganda)
2. Actually citing personal experience (just saying you have personal experience isn’t a debate/argument)
> Not labeling people who disagree with you as “part of a professional managerial class” / people who don’t want to work (propaganda)
I see, you get to label others with pejoratives like "propaganda", but others are not allowed to respond in kind with labels of their own. Seems a bit one-sided.
A less benevolent take is that VC money is primarily used to buy market share by selling below cost until other competitors exit and the company is left with a monopoly.
It seems for you the answer is no, but that’s not necessarily the typical response.