That’s an extremely poor choice of sponsorship for that particular video, made me laugh quite a bit

It’s definitely worth having that bot and I think it’s great that you’re putting the work in. It just doesn’t fix all the “misleading headlines” issues if people don’t even look at the comments or don’t read the (not super short) summary.

I’ve seen a few bot-tldrs and while I really appreciate the idea, I’m not sure if they achieve that 100%. The summary is often a bit long (sometimes just as long as the article) and as I understand it the one I see most often is grabbing sentences and stitching them together, which is nice since it keeps the actual content, but it can be a bit awkward to read.

Maybe yours is working differently, I think generally speaking it’d be best to have one paragraph summarizing the article (chatGPT-style), or having a tool that creates new headlines based on the content and replaces the actual headline itself.

Even with the perfect summary, there’s still the issue that people have to look at the comments to see it. I‘d imagine most people just scroll past the post itself.

Didn’t know the moderation tools were that limited. Hopefully that’s being worked on.

The posts I’ve come across didn’t seem like bot posts

There’s a difference between clickbait and misleading though. It probably often overlaps, but headlines can be clickbait without being misleading: “Doctors hate this one trick” isn’t really giving you wrong information. “Signal Denies Existence of Zero-Day Vulnerability on the App”, however, strongly implies that Signal has a security flaw that it stubbornly refuses to fix, which harms the reputation of the App and isn’t at all true if you read the actual article.

That’s the main issue I’m having with these headlines. They‘re not just annoying, they’re spreading misinformation.

It would probably help to only look at posts with a certain amount of votes where more people will end up seeing it

Yeah I’m with you on that one. I often feel like I might get it wrong and it’s generally best to keep the original. More often than not the answer is probably to just not post the article at all, if the headline is misleading and the actual news is far from newsworthy.

There’s just way too many articles being posted where at best the headline only implies something that isn’t actually true and at worst just plainly lies.

The funny thing is, even the article itself is often already correcting the headline, but I can’t imagine that more than 10% are actually reading every one, which means there’s a constant stream of misinformation being broadcasted. Not every one of these has high stakes, but still.

Here’s two examples that I just came across:

• Signal Denies Existence of Zero-Day Vulnerability on the App | Post. In the article: Someone posted unfounded claims about a vulnerability, Signal investigated but didn’t find anything, the person apologized and took the tweet down.
• Goldman Sachs exec reportedly said Apple Card savings account was a ****ing mistake | Post. In the article: “Mistake” isn’t even part of the quote. A person is saying this before it started and that person may not have even been involved in the project after.

And because people are only reading the title, they upvote and move on. Even though the comments set it straight as well. There’s a lot more that I’ve come across. It’s infuriating.

There is no metaverse. There’s VR games and multiplayer games, and metaverse became a word for anything that remotely touched any of these or that’s even remotely vaguely related. 3D assets → metaverse. Online game → metaverse. Video call → metaverse.

If you’re talking about Horizon Worlds, that’s a multiplayer game/social experience. Nothing about this is a “metaverse” as it is described in the book where that word came from.

The word is meaningless, nothing like the metaverse as described in snowcrash ever existed. If you’re talking about a multiplayer game that tries to mimic the real word then you’re right. But that’s not what the metaverse actually is…or what the word stood for, before being ripped to shreds as a buzzword.

This is the only true answer here.

Even Meta themselves said they want to “build the metaverse”, at that point the word still had a somewhat clear definition. It then became a bullshit buzzword and lost all meaning. Now even Meta is using the word as a synonym for “VR” or “Multiplayer”, which has nothing to do with the snow crash definition of the word.

Yeah you’re right, it‘s useless to question the usage of that word, it’s a lost cause. I liked the word and concept before meta took it over, which is why it still annoys me every time I see it. But I should just let it go.

That word has become meaningless, it’s being attached to anything related to multiplayer, 3D, VR, or a hundred other things. It’s a buzzword that doesn’t mean anything anymore. They’re not even sure if it’s already there or if they have yet to create it.

The unit is called “Facebook Agile Silicon Team” and the division is called “Reality Labs”. They’re working on custom silicon for VR/AR devices (or used to). Afaict that word comes from Reuters and is not being used inside meta in this context.

You don’t have to attach “metaverse” to everything and anything, I thought we were somewhat past this. It’s ridiculous.

Completely reasonable stand point, due to meta being meta. Depends on what you’re looking for, for standalone VR, Quest has sadly been the only real option for a long time. And unless the company behind it is the only factor, Quest is still the best option with the price, hardware, and game library.

Others are slowly creeping up, the main one being Pico, but that has it’s own issues. Which one did you have in mind?

Yes, they are quite different. But it’s also the two products that most people will know or have heard of and they may look the same to many not familiar with AR/VR. At the very least for them it’s an interesting comparison.

So not related at all is what you’re saying? (⁀ᗢ⁀)

Q3 being a budget version, it’s probably cheaper and has the advantage of swappable head straps as well as letting you rest your head on the couch or bed. It does move the weight closer to your head at least, but Vision Pro does the same thing. They decided to rather go for an external battery than putting anything in the back.

I’ll most certainly put something heavy back there to balance it out, the best thing for comfort you can do. I‘d definitely love to have the battery itself there, but I see why they’re doing it this way.

Honestly, if you’re comparing any two headsets, these make the most sense imo. They’re from the two biggest companies, the Q3 will presumably sell the most out of any headset and it‘s shifted to a lot more mixed reality.

They feel the most relevant, although there are certainly many differences. I think at the end of the day there isn’t really any headset that perfectly compares to VP, simply due to the fact that VP has a very heavy work focus and everything else is mostly game focused. Quest pro perhaps, but that headset is a joke.