I think the price is very reasonable for what’s on offer (especially given the current memory crisis), and given that Valve doesn’t subsidize the cost of anything, it really shows how much Meta values your privacy and biometric data for advertising purposes (~$600 in subsidies).
One thing I keep seeing reviewers skip over is VR Chat, which is weird since it’s a core VR experience that continues seeing average player count increases YoY compared to the boom-bust cycle of most VR games/experiences. It’s also an experience the headset seems uniquely targeted for - wandering the home or apartment streaming over 6GHz Wi-Fi, hanging out with friends or going to raves, no umbilical needed or dodgy Quest support limiting the experience.
For VRC alone, $1300 is a very respectable price for the experience on offer, especially compared to the $1k “entry point” of the Index. Common man VR this ain’t, this is targeting the VR serious as well as those who value privacy higher than what Meta offers in subsidies. The 2D support is a clever way of justifying the higher price though, and giving folks a more private way of enjoying their libraries in non-gaming spaces.
You're fooling yourself if the quest provides any advertising data value, let alone 600$ The device is simply just being sold for as a loss and is not a data harvesting operation.
Some quick googling shows the ARPU of a meta user is approx 57$ a year, and ~65$ in NA. Even if the quest provided useful advertising data (it doesn't) it would never come close to 600$ over the lifetime of a user.
I don't even understand what you mean by "biometric data" for advertising purposes. What biometric data is the quest collecting? How in the world is biometric data useful for advertising?
There's a reason why Meta is tens of billions of dollars in the hole for reality labs. It's not to subsidize for advertising that's for sure.
For VRChat it has even more benefits - built in eye tracking out of the box and and expansion port for which rumoredly there should be an official project Babble lower face tracker under development. :)
That’s a big reason I’m buying it (along with the wireless freedom of movement). VRChat has been a godsend of socialization and authenticity, and I want to immerse myself into it more with FBT, ET, and FT/MT such that it feels like a proper digital self. I couldn’t do that in my apartment layout with lighthouses a la BSB or Index, but the Frame and modern SteamVR/OpenXR suggests this will be one of the best ways to immerse into VR experiences going forward.
The fact I can throw it into my bag and travel with it is a bonus.
vrchat is just weird enough (and for, maybe, weird people) plus the new user experience/children yelling slurs situation makes it hard to even bring up to general audiences
I do think hardcore sims and vrchat are the only good reasons to get into vr now, though
Almost like if the $100k fee is the sticking point, then maybe the talent being brought in isn’t world class talent we can’t find domestically so much as easily exploitable manpower that can be replaced with another H-1B if they start asking for reasonable treatment or higher wages.
Sorry IEEE, but offshoring happens regardless of the H-1B fee. I’m a pretty flexible dinosaur but you’re never going to get me to feel sympathy for employers leveraging a visa that’s tantamount to employment slavery in its onerous restrictions and lack of direct pathway to citizenship.
You can download an app that does that. You don’t have to use Siri, and it can be turned off entirely, or decoupled from AI entirely, and the wake word can be disabled entirely. A lot of options are available.
Make a Shortcut that will open your local voice assistant app of choice when you press the action button.
Oh, many of us understand quite clearly what world was being built. I'd argue most members of marginalized groups knew damn well what kind of world was being built by those in power.
That being said, one of the best ways to fight surveillance as a concept is authenticity. The goal of the watchers is enforce constraints - limit where you go, who you talk to, how you dress, how you behave, etc - and remaining defiantly authentic lets them know those tactics won't work while simultaneously broadcasting to others that you reject the power those cameras have over you.
Surveillance succeeds because of fear, and it always falls because of authenticity.
Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.
"This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims.
Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool.
A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs.
By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.
What astounds me most of all from all this research is how much ownership LG (and through similar legal means, most manufacturers out there) asserts over the device you might have just paid thousands of dollars for - including the physical goods inside. This isn't merely an issue of corporate overreach and mass surveillance, it's a complete and utter failure of policy to adapt to shifting markets or preserve consumer agency.
Maybe an answer is a stripped-down Linux distro for smart TV chipsets that let users clearly disable said features entirely? Since I doubt anyone is going to willingly "go back" to dumb displays when so much data and ad revenue is on the line.
Counter-argument: bullshit jobs are beneficial to the wider economy.
Society demands consumption, which is funded via wages. The higher consumption, the more the economy grows. Ergo, having more people employed with higher wages creates more economic activity, which in turn fuels more growth, which fuels more jobs, etc. While eliminating bullshit jobs sounds great on its own merits, eliminating the wages for said jobs can actually clog the local engine by lowering wages, raising unemployment, slowing hiring, and curtailing growth. If 15% of jobs are “bullshit” to be eliminated, that’s a 15% reduction in SaaS and seat-based revenues, which means those companies providing services have to cut their headcount, which startles others…you get the idea.
I suggest that instead of cutting “bullshit jobs”, we instead reduce working hours across the board (and penalize overtime) such that more folks have an opportunity to engage in meaningful and valuable labor in exchange for higher wages. Rather than burning out a smaller portion of folks with longer hours, we share the load across multiple folks over a shorter time frame. The extra downtime creates more opportunity for economic activity, which in turn will grow the economy.
This was cited in the Austrian school of economics. I've found the Austrian school of economics to be sensible. But...actual American economics is like the opposite.
You could argue that a bullshit job is a form of rent seeking. The bullshit job worker is increasing his or her share of the wealth without actually creating any wealth through labor. Rent seeking overall is not a good thing for the economy.
I am not arguing in favor of the bullshit job itself, merely that we should retain the labor and dedicate it towards non-bullshit ends instead of the slash-and-burn approach favored by the loudest anti-bullshit-jobs proponents. Workers in every vertical report being overworked relative to compensation, so why not relieve the stress by shifting folks in bullshit jobs back into meaningful roles but at reduced work weeks for everyone involved?
I mean, I obviously know the answers why we don’t (shareholder value, power dynamics, desiring the humiliation of others), but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
> While eliminating bullshit jobs sounds great on its own merits, eliminating the wages for said jobs can actually clog the local engine by lowering wages, raising unemployment, slowing hiring, and curtailing growth.
If you get rid of BS jobs then you're not paying people to do them. Someone then gets the money you're not paying them, e.g. the company can now charge lower prices to customers who then have more money to spend. They then want to buy something else with the money and the people who need jobs then get jobs doing that.
In most cases this will actually increase consumption, because people buy more when things cost less and therefore provide more value for money. If the cost of a year of college goes down by $10,000 by eliminating some bloated administrative bureaucracy then more people can afford it, positions that couldn't previously find qualified applicants get filled and unemployment goes down, those positions pay better and people have more money to spend, etc.
> I suggest that instead of cutting “bullshit jobs”, we instead reduce working hours across the board (and penalize overtime)
Isn't this the exact same thing only distributing the hours differently?
You could be proposing one of two things. One is to have everyone work fewer hours doing the same thing they do now, but that one obviously doesn't work. Jobs like carpenter or trauma surgeon aren't BS jobs and if people spent fewer hours doing them then we'd have fewer of those things done, which would be bad.
The other is that instead of getting rid of BS jobs, we get rid of BS work. So we have fewer middle managers and have the people who used to do that instead do something productive, allowing the people currently doing the productive thing to work fewer hours.
The result of that would then be that everyone works fewer hours. But then they would have less money to spend. If you work for 32 hours instead of 40 at the same hourly rate then you take home less money. Getting rid of 20% of hours rather than 20% of employees would reduce total income by the same amount.
If the same thing happens and the company e.g. uses the money saved to lower prices then it's a similar scenario to getting rid of the jobs, except that now instead of production/consumption increasing because we got rid of inefficiency, people work fewer hours to get the same stuff because now they get paid for fewer hours but things also cost less. But that tends to be trouble because the prices change non-uniformly, e.g. the cost of financial services comes down because you eliminate some useless bureaucracy but you haven't done zoning reform so housing is still expensive. When jobs still pay the same amount that's fine, because a bunch of small businesses pay lower costs for payment processing or employee health insurance, lower prices by that much and then have to hire the people who lost their jobs to produce the extra stuff people buy with the surplus money. But if jobs suddenly pay 20% less, your mortgage payment hasn't changed.
Whereas if you take the original premise that people making less money would reduce consumption, e.g. that the savings would go into Evil Corp's money bin and never be spent, then you're in even more trouble in your case. Because you're deterring people from going back to the original number of hours in order to be able to afford the original level of consumption.
Shame isn’t dead. Specific kinds of shame are increasingly on the way out, particularly when it comes to individuality and self-expression, but shame itself isn’t dying or dead so much as accountability flatly does not exist anymore.
When the author bemoans a lack of shame in how the NBA teams tank games to improve later draft odds instead of playing out every game with ferocity and pride, what they’re actually bemoaning is the lack of consequences for such negative behavior - and misattributing that to a lack of shame by fans towards the team instead of a lack of consequences from governing bodies. It’s a naive fantasy of how the world works rather than a stinging critique of real problematic behavior.
It also ignores the grim reality that many people simply have no concept of shame in any sense that could correct their behavior. Zuckerberg absolutely has no shame, nor does Musk or Thiel or Bezos; it is impossible to shame them into better, healthier behavior, just as it’s impossible to shame Sony into manufacturing physical media again, or shaming the driver that just cut you off in traffic without a turn signal and used their vehicle as a missile to get their way by honking your horn or flipping them off. Shame alone means fuck all absent consequences.
And the thing about shame is that it too is a weapon that has been wielded to horrific ends in the past. Relying on shame alone is how you get McCarthy and the Red Scare, how you repress LGBTQ+ identities, how you segregate people based on skin color or ethnicity or national origin. Shame is toxic, and the few areas we rely on shame as a weapon are also areas of some of the greatest societal harms at present: homelessness, malnutrition, poverty, convicted felons, all are shamed for existence to the point they’re encouraged to disappear from society by any means other than improvement, like a one-way gate rather than a crisis to be addressed. In light of how we currently weaponize shame, I don’t think relying on expanding its use to address grievances is the right call.
Not saying the article is right, but the point is supposed to be that social norms used to (or should) be sufficient. People should feel and be made to feel shame for flagrant disrespect of core principles that their participation in a system would seem to entail (like playing to win).
Speaking for myself, shame has certainly sometimes been enabling, sometimes disabling. Wanting to live up to an image I have of myself and what I should be (and feeling ashamed when I don’t) is a pretty core part of how “I” work. I agree shame can certainly turn toxic, but there are times when it is fair to say, “you should feel ashamed of yourself” (including in some circumstances, “for driving that kid to suicide by making him feel ashamed of who he is”).
> the point is supposed to be that social norms used to (or should) be sufficient. People should feel and be made to feel shame for flagrant disrespect of core principles that their participation in a system would seem to entail (like playing to win).
This requires shared “norms” and “core principles”, which we no longer possess. I’m not sure how to regain them either. It’s not like we’re going to agree on a new set of shared principles; each major political group prefers that social norms should reflect only their own priorities.
I hate to be that dinosaur, but this is exactly what I’ve been warning about since XaaS began taking off in the mid-oughts: any provider you use can and will use your data for their own benefit regardless of any contracts or safeguards in place, especially if the benefits outweigh the consequences.
Honestly, I’m surprised it took this long for some company to really go all the way, though. OpenAI really making it transparently clear that they can and will do whatever they want with the data you provide them, contracts or settings be damned. Completely untrustworthy as an entity, full stop.
Of course, I’m also too jaded to think this will change anything. Folks will move to Anthropic, or Gemini, or Grok, or some other hosted model on a pubCSP managing the harness and logs for them, and then do another shocked-Pikachu face when it happens again.
If you aren’t running workloads on infrastructure you own, then your privacy, security, and general outcomes are at the sole whims of the hosting provider - who can and will fuck you over the exact second it’s more beneficial for them to do so than the loss of trust incurred.
One thing I keep seeing reviewers skip over is VR Chat, which is weird since it’s a core VR experience that continues seeing average player count increases YoY compared to the boom-bust cycle of most VR games/experiences. It’s also an experience the headset seems uniquely targeted for - wandering the home or apartment streaming over 6GHz Wi-Fi, hanging out with friends or going to raves, no umbilical needed or dodgy Quest support limiting the experience.
For VRC alone, $1300 is a very respectable price for the experience on offer, especially compared to the $1k “entry point” of the Index. Common man VR this ain’t, this is targeting the VR serious as well as those who value privacy higher than what Meta offers in subsidies. The 2D support is a clever way of justifying the higher price though, and giving folks a more private way of enjoying their libraries in non-gaming spaces.
reply