I totally agree with you, I'm actually doing another Alyx run after only playing it on my Index. It actually please extremely well on the Quest 3 with the Steam Link app. Seamless.
This guy on X gave me some suggestions of top tier VR games:
Hubris, Into The Radius, Wanderer, Blade & Sorcery, RE4 Remake, Modded Skyrim VR, Modded Minecraft, Vertigo 2, Arken Age, Half Life 1 & 2 VR, UNDERDOGS, Hitman VR, Pixel Ripped Series, Walking Dead, Propagation Paradise Hotel
Various random and unexpected indie games exist. Like the Indie community has fully embraced VR and it is full of unique and experimental and awesome and garbage games.
Euro and American Truck Simulator still have VR support and it's more fun and satisfying than it should be.
Load up Google Earth VR, plop yourself in front of your childhood home and feel more than you expected.
If you like modern air combat: VTOL VR and DCS. If you like WW2 fighter combat, IL-2 Sturmovik.
Hotdogs Horseshoes and Handgrenades for the ultimate American Freedom simulator.
Project Wingman for Ace Combat 7 in VR. Star Wars Squadrons is fully playable in VR. War thunder has VR
BeamNG has unofficial VR
Rec Room if you want to get absolutely schooled by 13 year olds at laser tag and paintball and other games.
Hyperbolica is an exploring and puzzle game about non-euclidean space, where walking in a straight line doesn't work like you expect and apparently it has VR
Pulsar Lost Colony is a game about being a star trek captain with your friends and also can be played without VR.
Phasmaphobia is a game about getting the shit scared out of you and you can do it in VR if you do not fear death
An upcoming game about "Be an artemis astronaut". There was also one to explore a Google Earth style of the ISS. Also Kerbal Space Program at one time had a VR mod.
Fair warning about rec room: That game is quite possibly slightly too immersive. Playing frisbee I dented the ceiling, and playing paintball I managed to dive head-first into a closet.
Hitman is amazing insofar as the worlds are so well realised and the gameplay is excellent. But the controls are a bit pants, and I had an issue on Quest three where it was applying a foveated rendering but the mask was off (and the quest 3 doesn't have eye tracking). So it was blurry within my field of view, and sharp just next to it.
Blame! is a manga where in the future humans have robots that build, and are controlled by people with Net Terminal Genes. Something happens and those humans die leaving the robots building non-stop procedurally for eons. By the time our protagonist moves about in the world, its said the Megastructure reaches from Earth all the way to Jupiter.
Up to a certain point, yes - if you never leave the U.S. and don't anticipate that the U.S. government will at some point extradite you to the UK. And if you travel to other countries, one of those could decide to extradite you to the UK. That is less likely with a lawsuit from Zimbabwe than a lawsuit from the UK. In other words, it depends on how much international influence the country in question has.
Only if you're okay with never visiting or transiting through the UK, or any other country that would be willing to extradite you there, for the rest of your life.
They'll have to come in and redo all the work that people put onto LLMs as actual engineering software. The number of features I've worked on that could have been done with normal computing practices but instead shoehorned in bad AI to make decisions/routing logic is too high.
There will be a bunch of layoffs and slowly they'll rehire back to pre-hysteria levels. I think the world is still going to need software engineers no matter what but companies will slow down on new features etc in an economic crunch.
The ripple effect will be felt hard, as American engineers are squeezed between offshoring and more engineers with Big Tech resumes being released into the market, and returnees go push back wages in their home countries in turn
If it pops, some ai engineers will need to start doing some normal work again, and rest of us... we just continue doing what we were doing for past decades.
Or maybe not, nobody knows the future any more then next guy in line.
Why? Starbucks is not providing a critical service. Spending less money and resources and just accepting the risk that occasionally you won't be able to sell coffee for a few hours is a completely valid decision from both management and engineering pov.
If I were a Starbucks shareholder I wouldn't be happy that my company is throwing away revenue because of the CTO's decision to outsource accountability
Time and time again it's shown that AWS is far more expensive than other solutions, just easier for the Execs to offshore the blame.
It's absolutely batshit that an in-person transaction with cash becomes impossible when the computers are down.
I've seen it multiple times at various stores; only once did I see them taking cash and writing things down (probably to enter into the system later when it came back up).
Why would you do free work for a company which is planning to profit from your labor? Wikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit. All of their money pays for real expenses instead of whatever vanity project Musk has decided is necessary to sell xAI to the masses.
How do you think you can reach anything close to objectivity without aiming for diversity and inclusion? What do you think will happen to an encyclopaedia which is mostly run by Elon fans? We already had that at one of the extremes (and the echos are still here) from the time medicine just didn't bother to study women.
When you grow up to be an adult, you will understand that "objectivity"is a fiction.
And an encyclopedia can absolutely do that and still present factual information based on actual research and facts.
You know that just because a lady has blue hair or a person has colored skin does NOT mean that they can't be right about something or do good research. Right? You do know it, right?
Because in the end, when you cry about DEI (whatever you believe it to mean), this is the implication that comes with it: that you can't imagine for a second that anyone who doesn't look exactly like you could ever do anything competently. I genuinely wonder if you've ever thought about that for more than half a second after you closed that Charlie Kirk video.
If you do believe it, fair enough. I guess you're allowed to believe it. But at least be honest about it.
I really don't mean to be rude but you sound insane. You have spent too much time in whatever insulated twitter space you're in, and you've ended up sounding like an insane person! Please go do independent research on these topics, so you can try not saying things like "DEI virtue signaling white knights". You just strung together 3 separate buzzwords (buzzphrase?)
Because truth is inconvenient to their world view. Better to build up the world and facts as you imagine them to be than risk learning something that contradicts deeply held beliefs.
Can you explain how that applies in this specific case? Because I can't come up with a scenario where you suggesting corrections to Grokipedia does any good.
If you're correcting a lie that they actively want to spread (e.g. the "White Genocide" lie) they obviously won't accept your correction.
If you're correcting a lie that they don't care about (hypothetical example: "ripe strawberries are blue") they might accept your correction, but that makes it less likely that an uninformed visitor will see through their lies.
So the best case scenario is that literally nothing happens, and the worst case one is that you're indirectly helping their cause. What am I missing?
Let me rephrase. The type of person who would submit "corrections" to grokopedia are the types of people who are typically interested in supporting its ideological outcomes. Because they have close enough to the same world-views. The same types of people who say female instead of women outside of a medical context or complain all the time about wokeness invading their favorite media. Someone who suggests that reporting errors to grokopedia would do any good are firmly in the camp that believes in the garbage it's trying to perpetuate. That's why they support it and why they think others should submit corrections.
They know that this is being built with an explicitly partisan bias, but also know liberal folk are super weak to certain types of attacks. Attacks like "be fair" and "you can submit feedback". They are explicitly playing on liberal weaknesses all while leaning into the blatantly false representation of history. They will say "you can't judge it since you haven't provided feedback to help correct it" but that was never their intention and they just say those things because it confuses liberals. And I know I've overused "liberals" here. That's absolutely my bias slipping in. But they are the most credulous folks who will constantly try to reach across the aisle to blatant bad faith actors. If there's a better term for this, I haven't learned it in my 20+ years of being politically active in the US.
Not that I think it does any good on a site like this, but I vouched for your original comment. I completely agree with you. I was also raised in the cult and have first hand experience with many people still in it. I know why they would support and lend effort to things like these. They support all sorts of awful shit.
Do you think Wikimedia doesn't profit off of the contributions people make to Wikipedia?
>pays for real expenses
Only a small percentage of donations do.
>instead of whatever vanity project
Anytime the topic of Wikimedia donations come up you will see people complaining about their vanity projects too, wishing they could donate towards wikipedia itself.
If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.
> If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.
Not the person you are replying to, and it is a bit tangential, but you just basically described a solid chunk of open-source software work.
I am not mocking open-source software work, I am mocking how reductionist the parent comment was, because their logic often applies to volunteer open-source software work as well. And, I suspect, on HN we can agree that volunteer open-source software work can often be worth doing, regardless of how "irrational" it is or how much for-profit corporations could benefit from it.
I don't think this is an accurate comparison. Working on open source software means you are contributing to that software, which yes may be used by for profit companies. This is more analogous to contributing to Wikipedia, which is then used by for profit companies like Grok, than it is contributing to Grok products directly, which cannot be leveraged by other tools in this ecosystem (afaik).
> If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes.
Why? This site isn't run by people who are interested in factual accuracy.
If they think Wikipedia articles are inaccurate, they could always propose changes and have a proper discussion with the rest of the contributors. Grok was trained on Wikipedia so realistically this is just a jumbled regurgitation of Wikipedia articles blended with other sources from across the web without the usual source vetting process that Wikipedia uses.
This is a politically motivated side project being run by the worlds richest man, and frankly I doubt many people are interested in helping him create his own padded version of reality.
the pursuit of truth doesn’t work by keeping so-called falsehoods up while a debate rages on about their veracity. especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts. i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening.
the proper discussion you want will never happen. it’s an exercise in persuasion ie trying to move people from one entrenched position to another, and there’s nothing more impossible than that. the only way out is to offer competition, and that’s what grokipedia seems to be doing. check the history of christianity, heresy, reformation. when the catholic church set itself up as the object to be won over persuasively it successfully stifled doctrinal progress. until the intolerants exited.
> i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening.
Are you familiar with Wikipedia at all? Here, for anyone who is unfamiliar, let's take a look at an example page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid - this is guaranteed to have controversial ongoing discussions given the political climate.
Note how at the top of the page right now there are two large boxes discussing ongoing changes to the article - one indicating that it is considered too long, and another indicating that some of the content is being split into a separate draft [0] page. Both of these boxes include links to the relevant pages and policies.
The first box, indicating that the article is too long and drifting off topic, includes a direct link to the Talk page [1]. Note that this page is also linked at the top of the article, and that goes for every single article on wikipedia.
That talk page is where the proper discussion that I want happens - out in the open. Note that you can even reply to talking points without needing an account. Note that replies and criticisms are reproduced and readable directly on the page.
This is what open collaboration and truth seeking looks like. "Grokipedia" requires you to create an account and funnel a suggested correction into an black box. It's the equivalent of a suggestions box in an HR office. On wikipedia, the discussion is out in the open, while the grok version just says "Fact checked by Grok" at the top, like we're supposed to blindly trust that.
Which of these is modeling open collaboration, and which of these is just deferring to priest grok, again? The grok page gives no indication that alternative interpretations exist, they don't show any indication that sections are being criticized as inaccurate. Comparing Wikipedia to the catholic church like this is divorced from reality, doubly so in comparison to this grok project.
> especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts
Have you ever been to a Wikipedia Talk Page? Basically every page you can find will have some people arguing about what should be placed on the page on the Talk page.
I mean, given who runs it, one would assume the apartheid apologetics are by design. I can think of few things more pointless than trying to correct Musk’s safe space.
I wonder what their solution to that is. Virtual environments?