Mistic

I agree that the gestures feel great (pretty much the only good part about this mouse imo), but why not just use a track pad instead?

Oh, yeah, that I agree with.

My head was at the "VR gaming" as a whole back when I was writing the comment.

Well, I've decided to check the financials of a couple of VR companies since your counterpoint sounded reasonable. The only one working at a loss is Meta. I could argue their business model is in Death Valley right now. After all, they have major capital expenses, which aren't easily covered unless you have a big userbase.

But that's their VR sector. Overall, Meta's profitable and can easily cover all the expenses several times over.

Also, what do you mean by "they have to dedicate several multi-person teams to manage the clients?" Firstly, who's "they," secondly, if I understood you right, that sounds prepostrous, unless you're talking B2B.

Well, Mojang's Minecraft in VR is dead. But that's kinda far from VR gaming as a whole, don't you think?

One symptom does not share the entire story.

Not to mention that there is a better alternative for it anyway.

Here's mine, that works outside of tech:

It's a great source for second opinions.

Say you want to make a CV, but you don't know where to even begin. You could give it a description of what you've been doing and ask it to help you figure out what jobs fit the skillset and how to present your skills better.

It's a good tool for such rough estimations that give you ground to improve upon.

This works well for planning or making up documentation. Saves a lot of time, with minimal impact to quality, because you're not mindlessly copying or believing the output.

I'm also considering it for assisting me in learning Japanese. Just enough to be able to read in it. We'll see how it does.

I think what you're forgetting is scale.

Lemmy is niche. VR is niche. Gaming is mainstream.

You can't call a niche dead just because there aren't that many people into it. It's a niche for a reason.

Linux is booming, even though it's "dead." Lemmy has never been this active in its entire existence. Why do investments from large companies matter?

What truly matters is growth. Negative growth is what kills a platform/industry/company/whatever else. VR is growing, Linux is growing, Lemmy is growing. It may not be fast, but they all have active userbases that support their development.

You cannot call a child "failure" just because it never achieved anything in life, can you? They are growing. They can get sick, they can recover. They can also regress due to that illness and die. Only then they're truly dead.

• More than 57mil (est.) monthly VR users
• PS5 has 116mil monthly users

For how big PS5 is and how small VR is, VR sure has a lot of people playing.

Lemmy has userbase (not even monthly activity) of 0.46mil (acc. to fedidb). Is lemmy dead?

What constitutes for a dead platform to you?

That's not even accurate.

If VR gaming is dead, then what does it say about Linux with about 5 times less users? Like, a low poly game about monkeys has a daily playerbase of a million people there. Mind you, Mincraft has 1 to 1.5 million. Not bad for a "dead" platform. Also, Valve isn't even the last one to enter the market.

I think what you're actually trying to say is that it's too niche, which it absolutely is.

UPD: as of right now, the access isn't blocked in any way.

It is still unclear whether or not the block was intentional, Nvidia gave no comments.

That's fair. I've put it there as more of a possible use case rather than something you should be consistently doing.

Although iGPU can perform quite well when given a lot of RAM, afaik.

If games, modding uses a lot. It can go to the point of needing more than 32gb, but rarely so.

Usually, you'd want 64gb or more for things like video editing, 3d modeling, running simulations, LLMs, or virtual machines.

I work in IT as PM, you're pretty close.

Modern technology is glued together NOT random shit that somehow works.

Everything created has been built with a purpose, that's why it's not random. However, the longer you go on, the more rigid the architecture becomes, so you start creating workarounds, as doing otherwise takes too much time which you don't have, because you have a dozen of other more important tasks at hand.

When you glue those solutions together, they work because they've been built to work in a specific use case. But it also becomes more convoluted every time, so you really need to dig to fix something you didn't account for.

Then it becomes so rigid and so convoluted that to fix some issues properly, you'd have to rebuild everything, starting from architecture. And if you can't make more workarounds to satisfy the demand? You do start all over again.