SkyeStarfall

It's unlikely a lecturer will change the course material this quickly. There's a lot of planning and work that goes into a class. They probably will change strategy for the next semester, though.

In addition, game dev is game dev. The skills are 90% transferrable. A university class (should, at least) will teach you about the foundational and general concepts, using a game engine like unity to put theory into practice. Classes generally don't use and teach a tool to teach how to use that tool specifically, but to teach something more general/foundational, that will be useful in the future no matter how the tech landscape changes.

Graphene actually is used in small amounts in a few places today. The difficulty is still in scaling up production.

I won't really know which computer storage technologies you're referring to. There are plenty of different ones, most of them just have niche applications or are too expensive to replace today's SSDs for general use, as SSD technology have gone a long way. It's a similar story to batteries, honestly. Lithium is still just the cheapest for what it does, but alternatives for niche applications exist.

Fusion needs more funding, no way around that, otherwise the theory is sound.

But of course, it is true there's tons of clickbait. But promising new developments do exist.

People are free to continue using proprietary software, but you can't then continue to complain when they inevitably do another shitty thing in the name of profit.

No wonder people are promoting FOSS, what else do you want to happen? I really don't get why people are so hostile to FOSS, it's literally for your own long-term benefit. How many more projects have to enshittify before people get it?

"AI is whatever haven't been done yet"

Yeah, none of us are unbiased. Literally. There is simply too much to know, and the world is far too complex, with too many unanswered questions/problems, to judge things without bias.

Even something as "simple" as ethics, has no objective answers as far as we know. And when people can disagree on ethics, you know, the very foundation of what is considered bad and good, how can you ever be truly unbiased?

The next best thing you can do, is being almost conciously biased. Find your moral framework and ideology (and the status quo very much is ideological as well), and criticize it and yourself to the highest degree. You won't be unbiased, but maybe you can get something productive going.

Unless you own a lot of stock yourself, this isn't necessarily false. At least this is debatable.

I was referring more to how there's an exception to every rule in, for example, biology (and other things in nature).

You mentioned autism, which by itself is an exception to the rule of how we think humans beings "should" be and act. And autistic people have long been tried to be forcefully put into the societally constructed boxes we made for ourselves, instead of accepting that some people are different and that it's ok.

Or how left handed people exist. Or how intersex is a thing. Or the myriad of medical conditions which, while not harmful, make people different, like situs inversus.

And that's just for humans. In nature you got everything from viruses which is debatable whether it can even be categorized as life, to platypuses, to fungi that have tens of thousands of different sexes. And this list is near endless.

Saying that XR technologies don't make good consumer products is weird considering consumer VR products already exist and are used but alright.

..and why do you think that AR glasses have to be at least 1kg in weight?? That's like saying laptops (or smartphones for that matter) will never be a mainstream product because nobody would want to lug around a 30kg machine. The smartphone I'm typing this on already weights just 150g.

We are still quite far from the limits of physics, and there are plenty of upcoming technologies which will allow to reduce weight.

I was referring to the concerns about privacy. In addition, when I say "to the technology itself" I am referring to AR in its ideal form.

..also XR technologies are absolutely technically feasible. They're not even that extravagant these days. The fundamentals are in place, and used.

Those are all technical reasons though. Aesthetics are limited by the technology. And the glasses calling home more than it should is also a technical and regulatory reason.

It can absolutely be done while sidestepping all the concerns. Or better yet, have glasses running FOSS software.

But sure, those concerns are reasonable, but they are not fundamental to the technology itself, but to our societal reality. That stuff won't get fixed by avoiding technology, only by societal change. And you can be sure that all kinds of stuff will be pushed into people if that societal change doesn't happen, no matter whether it's AR or not. (Just look at the recent trend of enshittification of everything).

You can apply that to pretty much any categorization we make for the natural world.

The natural world doesn't care for our categorizations or social construct. It can, and will, make shit that just does not fit to any of our boxes, and like it!

I don't really know what google has said, I wasn't really referring to them, but AR is plenty used in industry already.

There's just some way to go left for consumer use, but we are getting there. 5G networks are also supposed to help our with the possibility, due to their increased capabilities.

Consumer grade AR is being worked on, and it is expected to become a big thing eventually.