So in effect Jeff Besoz (hundred times billionaire, owner of the New York Post) helps Mark Zuckerberg (douzen times billionaire) out to attract people to the Metaverse.
Whatever.
I am sure those billions are not enough...Looking for trillions.....
So in effect Jeff Besoz (hundred times billionaire, owner of the New York Post) helps Mark Zuckerberg (douzen times billionaire) out to attract people to the Metaverse.
Whatever.
I am sure those billions are not enough...Looking for trillions.....
The fundamental problem with this thread is that you didn't say what the "experts" are actually experts in. Their expertise is in getting attention, not in predicting the future.
So in effect Jeff Besoz (hundred times billionaire, owner of the New York Post) helps Mark Zuckerberg (douzen times billionaire) out to attract people to the Metaverse.
Whatever.
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the New York Post. The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News.
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the New York Post. The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News.
Oops, correct.
Not that Murdoch is any better than Besoz, of course.
I'm not sure what "better" means in this context, but they aren't interchangeable. Bezos made his fortune on Amazon. I'm not sure if he has any investments in any metaverse-like stuff, but Amazon is at least a tech company. He used that fortune to buy the Washington Post later.
Murdoch made his fortune in media. More to the point, he saw that most American media sources outside of talk radio were left of center (as of the early 1990s), so he figured that there was likely to be a good market for some right of center media. And he was correct, which is part of the reason why he has made so much money of off Fox News. But while some Murdoch media sources are interested in sensational stories to attract attention (like the one in this thread), he doesn't have any vested interest in pushing a metaverse.
So in effect Jeff Besoz (hundred times billionaire, owner of the New York Post) helps Mark Zuckerberg (douzen times billionaire) out to attract people to the Metaverse.
Whatever.
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the New York Post. The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News.
I am going out on a limb here...but I guess that means there is money to be made from making people think the metaverse is something you can sell to them?
So in effect Jeff Besoz (hundred times billionaire, owner of the New York Post) helps Mark Zuckerberg (douzen times billionaire) out to attract people to the Metaverse.
Whatever.
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the New York Post. The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News.
I am going out on a limb here...but I guess that means there is money to be made from making people think the metaverse is something you can sell to them?
For The Facebook (change your name too many times and I revert you to a previous version), yes. For the New York Post, there's money to be made in clickbait headlines that get people to click so that you can display ads for them.
I remember my days playing Second Life, it was it's own verse. There were all types of businesses and some people were earning a decent living. Nightclubs, theaters, huge role-play areas, you could purchase virtual cars and housing there, or build them and sale them, even different organizations had virtual meeting halls there, it was addictive in it's hay-day. So it has been done before but with VR?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I remember my days playing Second Life, it was it's own verse. There were all types of businesses and some people were earning a decent living. Nightclubs, theaters, huge role-play areas, you could purchase virtual cars and housing there, or build them and sale them, even different organizations had virtual meeting halls there, it was addictive in it's hay-day. So it has been done before but with VR?
Metaverse never meant VR until Zuck made that video...
Might be blissfully dead by then and gaming in whichever hell I end up in. Hopefuly there is no F2P or P2E there.
If there is no F2P or P2E there then how is it hell?
You obviously haven't the imagination to see what comes next.
F2E
Since it's hell we're talking about, my guess is:
There is no game, but you're able to do surveys and read product manuals aloud to earn NFTFTNFTNFTNFTs (a non-fungible token that points to another non-fungible token that points to another non-fungible token...). Additionally you may take debt to spend money for nothing, and the worse debt you've played yourself into the better your credit rating becomes. This credit rating is periodically used to battle another random person whether you want or not, and a team of lawyers comes to inform loser of the outcome in writing.
The sad thing about the english language is really that "experts" just means one thing.
While in german you can just give the word "expert" a special pronounciation and everyone knows that you mean experts in idiocy and not actual experts.
The sad thing about the english language is really that "experts" just means one thing.
While in german you can just give the word "expert" a special pronounciation and everyone knows that you mean experts in idiocy and not actual experts.
Not really. In English, the word "expert" is commonly used to mean two wildly different things. People sometimes try to conflate them for self-serving reasons, but they're not the same at all.
One notion of "expert" is people who are objectively good at something. They can demonstrate their expertise by objective means, sometimes in ways that are convincing even to casual observers who have no such expertise. For example, Stephen Curry is an expert at shooting a basketball, and you don't even have to know the rules of the game to appreciate that.
The other notion is people who have credentials such as experience or a degree. This form of expertise may or may not actually be good at what they are experts at. In some cases, they're experts in something that has no clear notion of being good or bad at it.
People who are experts in the first sense should be given great deference by non-experts in their field of expertise, though not outside of their field of expertise. People who are experts in the second sense deserve no such deference, though they might well demand it.
It's important to understand that when dealing with public policy, the first type of expertise does not exist, and so if the person in question has any real expertise at all, you're only dealing with the second. Or more closely related to this thread, making non-trivial predictions about the future is at best the second form of expertise, and may be neither.
Comments
I am sure those billions are not enough...Looking for trillions.....
Murdoch made his fortune in media. More to the point, he saw that most American media sources outside of talk radio were left of center (as of the early 1990s), so he figured that there was likely to be a good market for some right of center media. And he was correct, which is part of the reason why he has made so much money of off Fox News. But while some Murdoch media sources are interested in sensational stories to attract attention (like the one in this thread), he doesn't have any vested interest in pushing a metaverse.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There is no game, but you're able to do surveys and read product manuals aloud to earn NFTFTNFTNFTNFTs (a non-fungible token that points to another non-fungible token that points to another non-fungible token...). Additionally you may take debt to spend money for nothing, and the worse debt you've played yourself into the better your credit rating becomes. This credit rating is periodically used to battle another random person whether you want or not, and a team of lawyers comes to inform loser of the outcome in writing.
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
One notion of "expert" is people who are objectively good at something. They can demonstrate their expertise by objective means, sometimes in ways that are convincing even to casual observers who have no such expertise. For example, Stephen Curry is an expert at shooting a basketball, and you don't even have to know the rules of the game to appreciate that.
The other notion is people who have credentials such as experience or a degree. This form of expertise may or may not actually be good at what they are experts at. In some cases, they're experts in something that has no clear notion of being good or bad at it.
People who are experts in the first sense should be given great deference by non-experts in their field of expertise, though not outside of their field of expertise. People who are experts in the second sense deserve no such deference, though they might well demand it.
It's important to understand that when dealing with public policy, the first type of expertise does not exist, and so if the person in question has any real expertise at all, you're only dealing with the second. Or more closely related to this thread, making non-trivial predictions about the future is at best the second form of expertise, and may be neither.