To tire a comparison to human thinking, you can conceive of it as hallucinations too, we just have another layer behind the hallucinations that evaluates each one and tries to integrate them with what we believe to be true. You can observe this when you're about to fall asleep or are snoozing, sometimes you go down wild thought paths until the critical thinking part of your brain kicks in with "everything you've been thinking about these past 10 seconds is total incoherent nonsense". Dream logic.
In that sense, a hallucinating system seems like a promising step towards stronger AI. AI systems simply are lacking a way to test their beliefs against a real world in the way we can, so natural laws, historical information, art and fiction exist on the same epistemological level. This is a problem when integrating them into a useful theory because there is no cost to getting the fundamentals wrong.
The new Android foldables with edge-to-edge outer front screen are bearable, but then again you're paying flagship prices just so your phone fits into your pocket.
If the Elf can give themselves infinite life in response to the infinite damage, then they have essentially won, because however much damage the Goblin would deal, they can just go "OK, but before that damage applies I give myself enough life to survive". The Goblin deck can never reach a game state where they win.
If the combos are sequential and the Elf has to commit to a certain number of life before the Goblin commits to a certain number of damage, then the Goblin would win.
There are some other possible intricacies (can they give themselves 1 life infinite times? or infinite life once?) From the mechanics of how the game usually goes, I would assume the first case applies here.
The way match/tournament rules work, when you have an infinite loop you can pick any number of iterations, but it has to be a number, not "infinity". Which means that the interaction of two infinite combos comes down to which one occurs with priority over which other.
If the elf deck can gain "infinite life" at instant speed, then they'd win over a goblin deck that can deal infinite damage at sorcery speed, because whatever number the goblin player picks, the elf deck can pick that number squared, for instance.
If both players can combo at instant speed then it's an impasse and they have to jockey for who can put their opponent in a position where they're tapped out, etc.
> If the combos are sequential and the Elf has to commit to a certain number of life before the Goblin commits to a certain number of damage, then the Goblin would win.
I agree that in formal tournaments this would happen, but the comment I was responding to was about a "casual tournament." I was assuming the 1000 life was with a sorcery (e.g. infinite mana combo + stream of life). In casual play, shortcuts are only when both sides agree, so it would be a jerk move to not agree to one that benefits your opponent after your opponent has agreed to one that benefited you.
On the contrary, I think the passthrough will be one of the defining differences to other headsets for the time being. Not having anything to hold in your hand while you go ahead and do non-VR things in your real environment adds a layer of convenience that's hard to appreciate from product videos. The improved passthrough, as bad as it still is, is one of my favorite additions on the Quest Pro.
What other things and how often though? Is it worth it losing the improved precision of the controller (and adding so much more complexity and battery use)
I think Facebook should consider usign only 1 controller though (i know I do). Also, to put the battery in the controller and tether it to the headset to make it even lighter. If apple is using a tether then it's ok to do it
I wonder if passthrough can be done mechanically, by rotating the lenses to a hole
That really depends on what you're doing with the device I guess. For gaming, controllers will remain indispensable, and you're planning to disconnect from the real world for a while anyways.
For everything else, quickly being able to grab a snack or drink, respond to a phone notification or change the place you're using the device from reduce friction.
It might be enough to push VR over that "I don't want to use the device because I don't want to commit to not doing anything else for at least 30 minutes now" hurdle that still very much exists.
That being said, I have no doubt Meta is going to be able to get there in due time too.
The average individual contributor in a big company is not able to meaningfully influence whether they produce value or not. They might be stuck in a team or even department with an agenda that produces little value, with no opportunities to make proactive change. It's quite intransparent in the FAANG hiring process if you will end up in such a team after your offer.
If ensuring your part of the company is working on the big picture right things becomes your responsibility, what's even the point of joining an established enterprise over a startup?
Have you used the later versions of WSL (WSL 2 under Windows 11)? You have seamless bidirectional file system access, GUI applications that mesh with the rest of the desktop, can use Windows Terminal and have other tabs with PowerShell open, no network setup or fiddling required. It's impressively convenient.
I admire your bravery for even trying to tackle this. Your rant about Emacs spoke to my soul. It's such a pain to use, but nothing else even comes close to playing the same game. I've been mulling over similar thoughts for years and there's clearly some space in the overlap between Emacs, Excel, Smalltalk and web browsers for a true power user computer interface. I'll be keeping an eye on this for sure.
