I think the reason why meta wants to federate is this:

• it helps with anticompetitive arguments, because it’s "open" and not controlled by meta alone
• some will refuse to use anything from meta, and threads users being able to communicate with them adds value
• it won’t hurt meta, because the majority will be using their app anyways
• it helps their image

I don’t think they’re doing it to "get more data" or to "take over the fediverse". There’s nothing worth taking over for them currently and since most people don’t care about the fediverse I don’t see it growing much either. Although I’d certainly like it if that were the case.

They can probably get the data already, it’s all openly available. Federating it’s basically all upside and no downside for them, but it’s not exactly the biggest priority to implement it, it‘s going to take some time.

I’m not saying it might not have a negative effect or that they care a lot for what’s currently there. They’ll certainly want to monetize threads sooner or later.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that governments might leave Twitter for threads and we should push so they use mastodon instead? Assuming that is what you mean, I don’t think that makes any sense.

For one, I don’t think government accounts are a main driver for social media users. No one ever said "I only use this service if the UK government has an account there". Governments go where the accounts are.

For another, you can push all you want, if it’s not something that people want to use it’s not going to work. Our best hope is for threads to actually implement activity pub and then being able to use other apps and servers, while still being connected to the "rest of the world".

No, this is the device they have announced for early 2024, it hasn’t come out yet.

In this case it’s not clear to me what exactly is going on (after reading both this and the Bloomberg article), but misleading headlines and first reactions from people who haven’t read more than the headline is just the default behavior. I find that a bit sad on multiple levels.

I’d be curious to see how things would have played out without them acquiring Oculus.

At the very least Meta is loosing billions with their VR adventure, so if nothing else, they’re not doing something else potentially way worse with this money.

I don’t know what’s actually going on, but this certainly sounds like something someone would say who’s about to be taken over by an "underdog" who couldn’t possibly beat them.

I can’t imagine anyone buying a Mac specifically for gaming. Anyone who’s into gaming will be on windows, but if you’re not super into it or it’s simply more convenient to play on a MacBook it’s definitely nice to have.

I’d love to have that

Things

That doesn’t keep gas stations from offering it, does it? It’s just not mandated anymore

[…] a phenomenon known as vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC).

That’s because the brain is fooled into thinking that a virtual object is some distance away, when the reality, of course, is that the displays are very close to your eyes.

This is a very common misunderstanding, but "the displays are close to your eyes therefore you get VAC" is just wrong.

Yes, the display is close to your eyes, but there are lenses that move the focus plane further away. VAC comes from the fact that that focus is fixed, and looking at something close by would mean you’d still have to focus your eyes further away to see it sharply. There are (research) headsets with the displays just as close, but with something in them that let you focus on different planes (e.g. movable lenses).

Or just longer battery life with the current battery size