Not just about the raw number of people. When your hear "the population is aging," it means the median age is increasing over time. It puts a lot of strain on an economy when the ratio of retirees to working age people gets too high. Retirees are expensive.
There's no reason to think there will ever be a sustained demand for VR entertainment. The experience is novel (for a time), but it's not qualitatively better than other delivery systems. And then, of course, the transient novelty never quite justifies the expense. VR's perception simulation has an uncanny valley-like effect. It's a bit too close visually (with the inevitable nausea), but it also calls attention to the absence of other forms of sensation.
>When a talented person tries to ban the tools that make an average person able to do the same stuff the talented person can do, this is intentionally disabling people to preserve a class privilege.
And now we're back to denigrating merit again. No denominator. No distinction. Everybody gets the same gold star.
You're using a different definition of plagiarism than Harvard uses. I also think Harvard's definition is overly broad, but that's not the point. The point is that a student would be punished for engaging in the same conduct that's at issue here. The double standard is the problem. The president of Harvard has broken the same rules she has enforced against the University's students. For them, the consequences are serious.
The analogy is inapt. It's not illegal to fail at parallel parking. Even if it was, it's not the type of offense that would get you arrested. You say the standards are different, and they are, but then you conflate the two contexts by treating both consequences as punishments. Failing a test is not a punishment. Failing at parallel parking is not legally or morally blameworthy.