communication

I actually didn't get that sense this time. Certainly the trailer left a lot to the imagination, and that's letting me imagine impossible features that weren't shown. But I thought Murray was very tame in his explanation. He didn't really promise anything beyond a giant procedural world with multiplayer, and we know they can deliver on that. Everything else might suck. I get why people are skeptical about this, but I'm feeling confident that the final product will match what was shown here.

Oh my goodness Light No Fire looks so good. I really hope they've learned the right lessons from No Man's Sky, because that trailer looked like everything I want from a game.

Some libraries have headsets you can loan, which can be a great option.

Like another commenter said, VR arcades are pretty widespread and affordable. In my area, though, most of them use HTC Vive or Valve Index. I don't think I've ever seen Meta headsets anywhere.

This is the most excited I've been about a giveaway in a while. The first game was well done and told an interesting story.

Okay, that's a fair point. They left too many blanks for the reader to fill in, and some will assume the problem is more widespread than it is.

When I put my Social Scientist hat on, I don't think the methodology was totally unreasonable or obviously malicious, so X would have to strengthen their claims to convince me to wait for court. But you're right, MM should have done better.

I agree with your point in general, but I have a hard time applying it here. Unless the lawsuit alleges that MM hacked into Twitter or doctored the screenshots, then the core claim of the MM report "Twitter served ad Y next to post Z" is not under dispute. If the claim is that refreshing a page is malicious, then I don't think we need to wait to call the lawsuit malicious.

This was what sold me on standing desks too! Taking a dance break halfway through writing a Very Professional Email almost makes it pleasant.

This is a beautiful blog post and I recommend reading it. I never used Omegle, but I now understand what we've lost.

I don't think you're arguing in bad faith, but I'm not going to engage with that because I don't want to get lost in a semantic argument.

Have you ever been bullied before? When you were young, did kids ever call you names? It sucked, right? Even in kindergarten you were smart enough to be hurt by it.

Now, imagine the teacher started calling you mean names as well.

And your parents.

And everyone you love.

And now imagine that you tried to carve out a small part of your life where you weren't being called something horrible.

Wouldn't you have deserved that? Weren't you smart enough to know you didn't deserve to be called names?

I'm not sure that matters when the question is about whether children are eligible for human rights. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we put many children in danger by telling parents who their child is.

Higher Priority: Basic rights of the child

Lower Priority : Parent's access to the internal lives of another human

PineTime checks these boxes for under $30. The caveat being that it's an open source project without fancy features. Also, the heart rate monitor doesn't work well on my skin, but it works for some people.

I love my PineTime, but I stopped using it because I wanted sleep tracking.