Yeah, the video did a horrible job at actually displaying angry alt-righters. But, nevertheless, Wolfenstein 2 is a good game worth killing some Nazis for. It was also interesting to see who of the characters in the game are in real life. The title probably came from Vice wanting the Alt-Right to look into the game that shows their comrades being virtually blown to bits in high resolution.

I've thought of this one many times over the years.
To me it would make sense for candy companys to spread these tales.
Virtually no one uses baked goods, popcorn balls, fruit or any other "Treat" anymore unless it's a perfectly wrapped, factory packaged treat.

To me it's a no brainier who benefited from these stories.

Your video, Virtually Unwrapping the En-Gedi Scroll, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Right. So the virtual lynchmob is ok because... worse things happen to other people?

What.

Dunno. Not sure how suggesting a woman should be raped because she tweeted a poor joke is in any way making up for Emmett Till. I mean, I made sure I was born of white parents in an affluent country so I guess this is a level of privilege that I will never be able to atone for... but if I tweeted at more white woman that I hope they gets aids do you think that would like, help my case at all?

Ah Jonas ... it's that time of year again. Time to remind me how much I miss you and your kindness here. 35 virtual birthday hugs from yer Playhouse Pal

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine a power technology emerging that makes the cost of electricity virtually zero and the supply virtually endless.

Since the emergence of life, the task of survival is the quest for energy in one form or another. Most of the critical advancements by humanity have been driven by the need to acquire, distribute and store energy. When you're sitting at your computer being productive for a paycheck, you are serving the same goal as prehistoric hunter-gatherers, you're just doing it via a much more complex system of acquisition and distribution.

The more efficiently we acquire energy, the less effort it takes to satisfy our individual energy needs and the more time we have for other pursuits such as culture and exploration.

What happens when the effort necessary to acquire a life's worth of energy approaches zero?

Congratulations! Your video, Virtual Reality Slide, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 130 Badge!

It's so amazing how a little bit of sensory feedback can completely sell a vr experience to your brain. Another interesting approach that is under development is a sort of VR/haunted house mashup where you physically walk through a set or rooms where the walls and objects exactly match the virtual ones.

Your video, Virtual Reality Slide, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 185 Badge!

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of photorealistic / realistic-behaving games as he describes and which actually work, but I don't know how many current genres / game styles would really "feel right" if presented that way. I don't think I'd want to play an especially violent game that looked fully real, while cartoony or otherwise clearly non-real I'm totally down with. Sports might be interesting, but doesn't really seem a necessary improvement. Survival horror would seem to be a good fit - a fully realistic-feeling presentation of something like Silent Hill or Amnesia has a certain sick appeal. Perhaps particularly in VR. Ideally in The Void.

Essentially there is no such thing as white light or indeed pink light. White light is when all your color receptors are saturated, what you think of as pink is when blue and red light is combined, and the possible wavelength combinations in both cases are sadly endless and impossible to represent fully in a simple table or graph.

Pink is a relatively easy color for monitors because, unlike for example yellow, pink is always a combination of blue and red light, while real life yellow is represented by a combination of blue and green light on your monitor and blue and green receptors in your eye. So yellow exists but we only ever see its representation as a mix of green and blue, while pink is a virtual colour all round :-)

Yes I suspect fluorescense is at play in this case somehow.

With RGB and CMYk the key word is representatiom. There are real life impressions of colours, and then there is the wish for standardisation and representation, but the eye is a very imperfect tool and representation is approximate. Real life paintings are awesome and you dont even come close watching photographs or computer monitors or prints in books.

MINTY! As a 'medium' timer who admired your 'work' here immensely, I am delighted you've popped in for an update. My heart goes out to you for your furry losses, always emotionally painful to endure. I must say that your recent additions, Nico and Tiny, are fine looking german shepherds indeed! Keep on truckin' dear one and hope to hear from you again sooner rather than later. Comforting virtual hugs from yer Playhouse Pals, cheRi, Jake and Elwood

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

I wonder if the Orville is just a virtual reality simulation in this show.