tkk23

Why does Zuckerberg focus on VR when WeChat has shown how much more of a platform Facebook could be?

>You would need a headset so small and light it's not too far off from a pair of sunglasses

Why? You don't have to transport VR. VR is the complement to mobile phones: mobile phones are used when you leave home, VR is used when you don't leave home.

The big question is: Are people going to leave home or are they going to stay home?

My guess is that it depends on how much energy is available. If there is no infrastructure worth visiting for billions of people, then VR will become a success.

>It needs to be inexpensive enough that everyone on Earth who currently has a smartphone can afford one.

If work happens in VR, then employer will finance the hardware for their employees.

How difficult is it to collect user feedback to improve the categorization?

>, but this "we interrupt your tweet thread for sponsored content" style tangent is a bit annoying

It is annoying but it can be seen as part of his argument. How can spam be moderated if even trustworthy creators create spam?

According to him, it's not spam because it doesn't fulfill the typical patterns of spam, which shows that identifying noise does require knowledge of the language.

It could be interesting to turn his argument around. Instead of trying to remove all spam, a platform could offer the tools to handle all forms of spam and let its users come up with clever ways to use those tools.

You have forgotten that all of those cows will already be killed, with a profit.

If VR is successful, can WiFi 7 handle a family of four playing their games in the evening, with neighbors who require the same bandwidth?

>The issue is mostly that it’s presumably cheap to fix unlike a billion cows all farting.

It's even cheaper to fix the farting cows: Just stop raising cows.

Of course, if you want to supplement beef and dairy products, it's not that easy. But if we would believe that global warming and methane were a problem, we could make a difference within weeks.

>we need to look into why these things are happening. It does not seem like a technical problem [...]. It's more of a personal, interpersonal and a social problem

Should society adapt to the social networks or should the social networks adapt to society?

Social networks make the problems of society visible. Does this mean that all social problems have to be resolved? Social networks can also be designed in a way that society can continue as it is.

Even if it is necessary to resolve the personal and social problems, how could they be resolved without technology? There are no new problems, they are just more visible. If researchers haven't resolved them until now, chances are that they won't resolve them soon without game-changing new technology.

Could Scroll be redone as a new startup?

You could try house sitting.

Instead of seeking a job, why not create an environment that allows you to code? You could become a Youtube or Twitch streamer or you could seek angle investors that pay for your projects.

>though our tech was superb.

Please don't leave us hanging. How had you designed it?

I would like to know even more: Did you have integration with other networks via ActivityPub or other protocols?

There is a huge risk of wasting time if I cannot migrate my social network. New services are prone to being discontinued, why should I invest in a new network that locks me in?

I don't understand why not all new networks offer ActivityPub migration by default. Distribution should be much easier.