“Meta”

Scepticalscribe

Cancelled
Posts
6,644
Reaction score
9,457
I assume “meta” is short for “metastasize”

Now, that is an angle that hadn't occurred to me.

Excellent.

And, now, this is the precise (and wonderfully apt) mental image that I shall gleefully summon whenever I hear any attempt by the foul entity formerly known as Facebook to use this utterly witless expression in lieu of their better known tainted (and compromised) name.
 
Last edited:

yaxomoxay

Emperor
Posts
949
Reaction score
1,364
For those interested, Cal Newport discussed the Metaverse issue on today’s podcast.

Link her, starts at about minute 58:30. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-questions-with-cal-newport/id1515786216?i=1000551385024

He makes two points:
1) Classic Social Media has stopped his growth and is now going towards pure entertainment and fragmentation, which is something FB can’t really survive.

2) Based upon conversations with leading Silicon Valley people: Due to distributed cloud computing, and the advancement of technologies, we’re going towards a world in which one device (glasses or VR headset) is needed. If true, this would mean the end of all electronics as we know it today. No need for a TV (headset will create one for you), no need for a phone (headset will take care of it), no need for a computer (need a computer? The screen will be created in front of you by the headset) and so on. Cal explains it better in his podcast.
 
Last edited:

Nycturne

Elite Member
Posts
1,113
Reaction score
1,427
For those interested, Cal Newport discussed the Metaverse issue on today’s podcast.

Link her, starts at about minute 58:30. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-questions-with-cal-newport/id1515786216?i=1000551385024

He makes two points:
1) Classic Social Media has stopped his growth and is now going towards pure entertainment and fragmentation, which is something FB can’t really survive.

2) Based upon conversations with leading Silicon Valley people: Due to distributed cloud computing, and the advancement of technologies, we’re going towards a world in which one device (glasses or VR headset) is needed. If true, this would mean the end of all electronics as we know it today. No need for a TV (headset will create one for you), no need for a phone (headset will take care of it), no need for a computer (need a computer? The screen will be created in front of you by the headset) and so on. Cal explains it better in his podcast.

Some interesting commentary there, although I remain somewhat skeptical that companies like Facebook are really looking that far ahead. Not when I see folks around me at work going "oooh" and "aaah" at the ability to create artificial scarcity and extract fees from scarcity they created themselves. So while Cal calls the Metaverse a smoke screen, I think he's being a bit too generous. The tech bros I see for the most part are right now distracted by what might be the next "gold rush", and wanting to sell shovels and picks to everyone.

That said, the idea of AR as a "it can replace everything" device is interesting, but I have some skepticism. Certain tipping points have to be reached before it can do something like what smart phones have done, and it's at that phase where we don't know how long it will take before it stops being "5 years away". And this was the same sort of long-term vision showing up with Google Glass almost 10 years ago now, so this isn't exactly a new angle. Some of what Cal describes is rooted in research that requires a breakthrough or two (similar to self-driving vehicles), which makes these sort of timelines hard to guess. There's also the angle of it not being as good as the devices it will replace, but that's never really been an issue in the past. But it might leave rather large niches for existing technologies to continue on, much like how the smartphone still has yet to really kill the PC, despite folks thinking that we'd just be using docks to get a large screen experience for the folks that actually needed it. The PC market is shrinking, but also moving more upscale (with things like netbooks replaced by phablets and cheap tablets), but still also represents hundreds of millions of units per year. So I think that any claim that AR will outright kill smartphones, TVs, etc are too optimistic.

I also kinda cringe at the idea of becoming even more dependent on cloud services to do my day to day, which is one thing Cal comments on, relying on cloud services and the like while the AR googles themselves present a window to those services. Be it entertainment, directions, computing with oomph, etc.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
Some interesting commentary there, although I remain somewhat skeptical that companies like Facebook are really looking that far ahead. Not when I see folks around me at work going "oooh" and "aaah" at the ability to create artificial scarcity and extract fees from scarcity they created themselves. So while Cal calls the Metaverse a smoke screen, I think he's being a bit too generous. The tech bros I see for the most part are right now distracted by what might be the next "gold rush", and wanting to sell shovels and picks to everyone.

That said, the idea of AR as a "it can replace everything" device is interesting, but I have some skepticism. Certain tipping points have to be reached before it can do something like what smart phones have done, and it's at that phase where we don't know how long it will take before it stops being "5 years away". And this was the same sort of long-term vision showing up with Google Glass almost 10 years ago now, so this isn't exactly a new angle. Some of what Cal describes is rooted in research that requires a breakthrough or two (similar to self-driving vehicles), which makes these sort of timelines hard to guess. There's also the angle of it not being as good as the devices it will replace, but that's never really been an issue in the past. But it might leave rather large niches for existing technologies to continue on, much like how the smartphone still has yet to really kill the PC, despite folks thinking that we'd just be using docks to get a large screen experience for the folks that actually needed it. The PC market is shrinking, but also moving more upscale (with things like netbooks replaced by phablets and cheap tablets), but still also represents hundreds of millions of units per year. So I think that any claim that AR will outright kill smartphones, TVs, etc are too optimistic.

I also kinda cringe at the idea of becoming even more dependent on cloud services to do my day to day, which is one thing Cal comments on, relying on cloud services and the like while the AR googles themselves present a window to those services. Be it entertainment, directions, computing with oomph, etc.
Tech bros don’t think very far ahead.


These three patients, and more than 350 other blind people around the world with Second Sight’s implants in their eyes, find themselves in a world in which the technology that transformed their lives is just another obsolete gadget. One technical hiccup, one broken wire, and they lose their artificial vision, possibly forever. To add injury to insult: A defunct Argus system in the eye could cause medical complications or interfere with procedures such as MRI scans, and it could be painful or expensive to remove.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
Interesting take on how fundamentally flawed Meta’s business model really is. Basically, they relied on the hope that their illegal invasions of privacy would never be challenged. Think of what is killing them. A single question to users: do you want to be tracked?


Toss them on the pile with MySpace and AOL.
 
U

User.45

Guest
For those interested, Cal Newport discussed the Metaverse issue on today’s podcast.

Link her, starts at about minute 58:30. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-questions-with-cal-newport/id1515786216?i=1000551385024

He makes two points:
1) Classic Social Media has stopped his growth and is now going towards pure entertainment and fragmentation, which is something FB can’t really survive.

2) Based upon conversations with leading Silicon Valley people: Due to distributed cloud computing, and the advancement of technologies, we’re going towards a world in which one device (glasses or VR headset) is needed. If true, this would mean the end of all electronics as we know it today. No need for a TV (headset will create one for you), no need for a phone (headset will take care of it), no need for a computer (need a computer? The screen will be created in front of you by the headset) and so on. Cal explains it better in his podcast.
I think #1 is correct.

#2 is just too vague. Such unifying device is nowhere near the horizon. iPhone's launch in 2007 comes closest to this and it still took a good 5 years for the tech to become what it originally promised to be. I remember having an HP PDA in 2001 that I controlled with my fingers just fine and had an absolute blast. In contrast, such tech candidate isn't even on the horizon. So if it took >10y for a simpler feat for PDAs to turn into truly smart phones and another 5-8 years to saturate the market, it will take at least as much time or longer for that ultimate unifying device to emerge. And the present tablet/smart phone tech is still nowhere near challenging laptops for actual business/work tasks.

So no, I doubt that Meta's survival in the present will depend on that unifying device.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I think #1 is correct.

#2 is just too vague. Such unifying device is nowhere near the horizon. iPhone's launch in 2007 comes closest to this and it still took a good 5 years for the tech to become what it originally promised to be. I remember having an HP PDA in 2001 that I controlled with my fingers just fine and had an absolute blast. In contrast, such tech candidate isn't even on the horizon. So if it took >10y for a simpler feat for PDAs to turn into truly smart phones and another 5-8 years to saturate the market, it will take at least as much time or longer for that ultimate unifying device to emerge. And the present tablet/smart phone tech is still nowhere near challenging laptops for actual business/work tasks.

So no, I doubt that Meta's survival in the present will depend on that unifying device.
I don’t buy the idea that everybody is going to want a device constantly strapped to their face.

Also, thanks for mentioning the iPhone. It was announced after it was already designed and ready to be built, then it was actually available for purchase soon after the announcement. What compelling VR gear is Meta selling that you can buy now or in the next few months?
 
U

User.45

Guest
I don’t buy the idea that everybody is going to want a device constantly strapped to their face.
Strapping isn't even the issue IMHO. VR headsets are pretty good already, but the AR integration issue isn't solved at all. I got myself the original Oculus DevKit ~2013 and the tech improved so much in the next 2-3 years. But now I have my VR goggles in a box, because I'll never be able to use them with my kids around.

Perhaps the miniaturization challenge is similar to for VR/AR as it was for PC=>PDA=>Smart phone. But the GUI problem is infinitely more complex with AR than the challenge of just transforming a PC GUI to work with finger gestures. Add the challenges of both latency and bandwidth of interaction. You need to be able to tell the system what you want that matches the speed and complexity of what it can display and I have yet to see a human interface device that is up to the task.

It would probably require a direct brain-machine interface which is again pretty problematic and not on the computer tech side. The self-organizing capacity of real neural networks is absolutely shocking. Visual cortex prosthetics can interface with the brain and the brain can "just learn" how to control/process these. The real challenge is the risk of having a brain implant long-term that doesn't bleed, doesn't move and puncture the surrounding brain tissue, doesn't cut off the microcirculation causing strokes (infarcts), doesn't let toxins in (the blood-brain barrier is critical), doesn't cause local irritation that would cause seizures, doesn't get infected (in the context of bacteremia implants tend to serve as a breeding ground for bacteria), and does all of these for decades and decades. IMHO, these are the barriers and issues that a Musk-like person is ill-prepared to actually overcome. Getting the implants in is the easy(er) stuff.
 
U

User.45

Guest
So I just learned recently that Zuckerberg went to a private boarding school ($60K/yr) that a friend of mine went to. It's a place that almost guarantees a subsequent Ivy League education and they've told interesting stories about. It is my personal view that an Ivy League education can never compensate for what is missed by these kids in parental interactions. Which takes me to why this piece of biographic information about Zuckerberg made me suddenly understand his behavior much better.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
Strapping isn't even the issue IMHO. VR headsets are pretty good already, but the AR integration issue isn't solved at all. I got myself the original Oculus DevKit ~2013 and the tech improved so much in the next 2-3 years. But now I have my VR goggles in a box, because I'll never be able to use them with my kids around.

Perhaps the miniaturization challenge is similar to for VR/AR as it was for PC=>PDA=>Smart phone. But the GUI problem is infinitely more complex with AR than the challenge of just transforming a PC GUI to work with finger gestures. Add the challenges of both latency and bandwidth of interaction. You need to be able to tell the system what you want that matches the speed and complexity of what it can display and I have yet to see a human interface device that is up to the task.

It would probably require a direct brain-machine interface which is again pretty problematic and not on the computer tech side. The self-organizing capacity of real neural networks is absolutely shocking. Visual cortex prosthetics can interface with the brain and the brain can "just learn" how to control/process these. The real challenge is the risk of having a brain implant long-term that doesn't bleed, doesn't move and puncture the surrounding brain tissue, doesn't cut off the microcirculation causing strokes (infarcts), doesn't let toxins in (the blood-brain barrier is critical), doesn't cause local irritation that would cause seizures, doesn't get infected (in the context of bacteremia implants tend to serve as a breeding ground for bacteria), and does all of these for decades and decades. IMHO, these are the barriers and issues that a Musk-like person is ill-prepared to actually overcome. Getting the implants in is the easy(er) stuff.
Clearly, none of this is “ready for prime time” nor does it appear it will be anytime soon, if ever. If this is Zuck’s plan for saving the company from its shrinking social media business, it is too little, too late.
 
U

User.45

Guest
Clearly, none of this is “ready for prime time” nor does it appear it will be anytime soon, if ever. If this is Zuck’s plan for saving the company from its shrinking social media business, it is too little, too late.
Considering human nature, a metaverse like system needs to offer something people can't do in the real world, let it be sexual, monetary, or violent. Since items #1 and #3 are off limits, they have to have metafluencers to create content that is much more abstract than the regular TikTok shit, and a monetization system that isn't yet in place. All in all, Zuck's in trouble.
 

mr_roboto

Site Champ
Posts
272
Reaction score
432
So I just learned recently that Zuckerberg went to a private boarding school ($60K/yr) that a friend of mine went to. It's a place that almost guarantees a subsequent Ivy League education and they've told interesting stories about. It is my personal view that an Ivy League education can never compensate for what is missed by these kids in parental interactions. Which takes me to why this piece of biographic information about Zuckerberg made me suddenly understand his behavior much better.
If you want even more biographic info on Zuckerberg and exactly why Facebook is as awful as it is, and you have the time to listen to a couple podcasts, and don't mind that the tone of Behind the Bastards is dark comedy, here you go:

Part One: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)
Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)

There's a followup two-parter as well, just in case you need more reasons to hate Mark Zuckerberg:

Part One: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
 

DT

I am so Smart! S-M-R-T!
Posts
6,405
Reaction score
10,455
Location
Moe's
Main Camera
iPhone
Swell ... :ROFLMAO:

1645662582276.png
 
U

User.45

Guest
If you want even more biographic info on Zuckerberg and exactly why Facebook is as awful as it is, and you have the time to listen to a couple podcasts, and don't mind that the tone of Behind the Bastards is dark comedy, here you go:

Part One: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)
Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)

There's a followup two-parter as well, just in case you need more reasons to hate Mark Zuckerberg:

Part One: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
Putin has entered the chat...
 
U

User.45

Guest
here we go. My facebook ads...

NSFW:

1645840986863.png


Except for the above, this time around they've done some good targeting for wrong reasons. I'm working on a study design using some supplements and after some very specific searches I was flooded with food supplement ads. Maybe the swimwear stuff came up because of this.
 
Top Bottom
1 2