baroffoos

Valve has done a pretty good job at standardizing VR tech with OpenVR/SteamVR. All of the headsets except the oculus seem to have really good hardware compatibility. The vive controllers can be used with the pimax hmd, etc.

Facebook seems to be trying really hard to create a lockin with the oculus, if you buy games on the oculus store, you are now forever locked in to only buying oculus hardware from now on.

>It turns out that E.T. isn't a bad game after all. With a few simple changes we were able to dramatically improve an already good game by eliminating the most common complaints.

If only they had the ability to remotely update games back then.

Unless the major investments are government funded. Last I heard, china was doing really well with quantum technology and maglev trains.

OSs didn't implement it though. And they never would unless browsers forced it on them. The right approach is for browsers to bring it in and then when the OS supports it, default to the OS version. But right now I don't know of any OS other than I think android that supports it.

So you are left with the choice of making something that works right now and will provide enhanced privacy for everyone or attempting to fight middleboxes and corporate configs and see a similar rate of adoption as ipv6.

Once absolutely everything is running through opaque https requests we might see middleboxes go away since they aren't able to do anything anymore.

Its a little disappointing that after all of the years and revisions of the rpi. It still requires untrusted proprietary drivers to simply turn on.

I'm so glad linux usually contains reverse engineered drivers that are open source so everything just works out of the box with logitech.

Their gaming mice have cabled versions which are really nice.

Rifles have none of the legitimate uses that gun advocates go on about so its a low reward but 0 loss situation to ban them.

Unless someone is proposing you need to defend your house against a zombie invasion.

You comment just confirmed my thoughts that people in the US often can't afford a car and are forced to go through any insane measures possible to use one since it is a requirement for life in the US.

Its corporate green washing. Companies know that customers generally feel some amount of guilt over the products they purchase due to the environmental impact of them so they get the marketing teams to find some way to ease that guilt without actually doing much at all.

Recycling has mostly been a global scale PR move to make people think they can buy as much product as they want and its ok because it gets turned in to new products after. What most people don't understand is while many things can be recycled, most things aren't. And most of the time recycling is actually downcycling. The product gets turned in to a lower form of material and after that its garbage.

Its also a method to turn the blame around. Environmental damage isn't the corporations fault. Its your fault for not recycling enough even though the recycling centers have just shipped it off to the 3rd world to be burned.

Its strange how the American version of compassion is to totally ignore homeless people rather than do anything to help them.

>2. The U.S. is a rich country and more people can afford their own car or to take a taxi/rideshare.

Is this true? It was my understanding that a large % of Americans can't even afford to buy a car and have to take out a loan as well as cutting down on other living expenses to have enough money to drive to work.

I'm happy to listen to alternative solutions on how the environment can be protected from needless product waste. And no, recycling doesn't come close to reuse/repairs.

>Not every consumer wants or cares about this

What consumers want or care about is less important than the ability to live on the planet in 100 years.