You also have to consider that faces are one of the things that we have the strongest perception of, with lots of our neurons dedicated to the task, so when you get things wrong it's far more noticeable than many other bodily animations would be.
I recommend thinking about what you can do that would significantly differentiate the gameplay from what is possible irl. Just putting laser tag in VR is a downgrade in many aspects from what you can achieve in reality, so you need a lot of gameplay innovation to make it a compelling proposition.
One small example of where just copying things from real life falls short:
Your proof of concept show walls (because that's what laser tag does to create compelling gameplay) but walls are a mediocre choice in a colocated VR game because the actual behavior (users can always walk through them in VR) defies the user's built in expectations about what it means for something to be a "wall".
It seems plainly obvious that history shows the opposite is true; corruption is increased when money and power are centralized amongst a few people. There's a reason the term "Robber Baron" came around the last time we experienced massive inequality as a country. If you have some examples to the contrary I would love to hear them.
This article's title is disingenuous and is guilty of the same thing it accuses the study of.
The actual content of this article is the following (TLDR)
1) That the study didn't show a reduction in negative health outcomes, rather the control group showed an increase in negative outcomes.
2) The author of the article disagrees that this is equivalent to the stated claim, and offers a number of alternative explanations why you might see this outcome in the data
3) The author offers some critiques around lack of data transparency and the statistical rigor of the study.
In the end the title is a semantic nitpick around the difference between "improved absolute health" and "improved relative health outcomes" and not the smoking gun of bad faith actors it implies.
The USA is already one of the world leaders in percent of population incarcerated; it doesn't seem we are suffering from an inability to imprison. If we as a society decide to revoke someones freedom and choice, then we should be willing to shoulder the cost. Making imprisoning low cost, or even worse profitable, creates massively perverse incentives. If it costs the system little to nothing, why bother to make sure people are really guilty? Why bother to spend the money to rehabilitate? Your goal should be to align incentives, which makes a high-cost and humane prison system have lots of favorable characteristics.
All these "illegal" guns started their life as brand-new perfectly legal firearms. It's a very leaky pipeline, one in which the industry and industry funded lobby groups have at least a bit of a mixed incentive to solve. The vast majority of the proposed gun-control laws focus on tightening up the leakiest parts of the supply chain, or on reducing the overall demand for various firearms.