I had a similar experience. I bought an Odyssey+ but returned it because I felt motion sick every time I tried it. I've read you're supposed to just power through and eventually you get used to it, but that seems like an easy way to guarantee your product will fail. I had friends try it and they also felt the same way.
AR may be a different beast. I don't usually hear people describe it as uncomfortable, mostly just lacking power and content. I also think the market for AR would be much bigger than VR. I think that is why Apple, MSFT, and Google are focusing on it.
I'll add that I think your comment was interesting which is part of why I commented on it. My comment was meant to be generic and the only reason I commented here was that I saw this thread was popular and your comment was near the top. So it is not a critique of the information and it was a bit unfair to call you out. I am hoping others consider not using those phrases so often. I've noticed very smart people use it a lot, probably because these things are indeed trivial to them. But it does not help anyone understand their arguments. Many times just removing the statement makes the argument more understandable as there is less noise.
I've noticed an increasing trend in people using phrases such as "it is trivial", "it is obvious", "it is self evident" to defend their arguments. I have yet to encounter a case where it made their argument better.
This might be off topic but it has become a pet peeve because I've even started to encounter it in real life. It is similar to starting a discussion with "if you disagree with me, you are stupid".
I was in gifted classes for a couple of years from like 5th-6th grade but was eventually separated. I had perfect standardized test scores, but my grades were average due to many reasons. Some of my teachers didn't like me, and I guess they decided to kick me out. Later I ended up dropping out in high school but still went to college later and now work at one of the big tech companies. So in the end I ended up alright but others may not be as lucky.
I'm not going to lie, being separated from the "smart" kids felt bad. I knew I was just as capable, but someone had the power to decide who is gifted and I guess they didn't like me. I was placed in classes where the teachers were of lower quality and the material was even less interesting. One of the teachers who didn't like me while I was with the gifted kids was my science teacher and that made me dislike science as a whole. I had a couple of math teachers who were extremely supportive throughout my early education and that made a world of difference. I decided to study CS in large part because I could avoid a lot of science courses and focus on math.
I also have a sister who was indirectly affected by me being in gifted programs. She later admitted to me it made her feel really bad that I was placed in those programs while she wasn't. I think this really hurt her self esteem and had a negative impact in her education. I could imagine other kids feeling similarly when some of their peers get labeled as gifted while they don't.
Looking back, the biggest benefit of being in gifted programs was simply that the teachers were better. So the kids who didn't necessarily need better teachers got the best ones, while the rest got packets to read through. The kids also weren't that different. The main difference was how much the parents of the gifted kids were involved in their education and they were generally wealthier. Overall it seemed like an unfair system that told kids who were just starting out whether they were smart or not. I think we really need better and more teachers, but they aren't paid enough. School is more of a place to put children while parents work than it is a place to educate.
> he owes playing video game to help him in critical thinking.
I often hear people attribute part of their success to things they already did, and I think it's usually just a combination of survivorship bias and other similar effects. I've heard people say similar things of nearly every substance or activity: "I am successful and doing X is part of the reason" where X can be anything from illegal substances to something mundane like coffee. Usually when X is something one likes, one tends to find it interesting.
This has been on my mind after recently debating with friends whether some substances like weed or shrooms should be legal and them basically saying they shouldn't because they know people who have taken them and turned their lives for the worse. Then I brought up how you can say similar things about video games (which IMO they are addicted to) and they quickly said it's different and you need to perform some impossibly complex studies to determine anything.
This is likely part of the reason echo chambers form everywhere. If ideas confirm our own beliefs, we hold them to much lower standards than when they don't.
I pay for 4k netflix but can't watch it on my computer because of drm. On Chrome it only streams up to 720p, and I have to use Edge for 1080p. To stream 4k you need to use their microsoft store app, a specific high-end processor or graphics card, and on top of that you also need a monitor that supports hdcp 2.2. I have all of the above (1080ti and hdcp 2.2 compliant monitor) but still can't stream 4k because my second monitor is not hdcp 2.2 compliant. The monitor states that it is but I couldn't get it to work even after extensive research. All of my setup is pretty modern and high-end and I still can't stream 4k netflix because drm hardware keeps evolving. If this is supposed to make me pirate less, it's not very effective.
Examples: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/PSVR/comments/...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment...