skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There could be interesting applications of this. What if the doctors were all linked in a group through Facebook (this sounds unlikely, they have their own professional networking tools, but suspend disbelief for a moment).

The patient is a mother experiencing pregnancy complications, stuck a remote area of Alaska, in an Oculus conference with a doctor in Seattle. Her doctor diagnoses her and uses the network to find a specialist in the specific condition. Turns out there's one in Portugal, and at an appropriate time the Portuguese doctor joins the Oculus conference. The two doctors work together to make a recommendation for the patient. Like a videoconference that actually feels like a meeting (a holy grail for decades)

This is the kind of application that would be best pursued by an independent company, but is certainly more likely from Facebook than from Valve.
Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.

Since their market cap is roughly $100 billion, that figure would probably be closer to $100. Would you pay that much? It's an interesting thought.
The Web belongs to all of us because the people who invented it made the incredibly generous decision to set it free. (I've written a little about how that decision was made here: http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-that...)

I don't see anybody rushing to put their VR IP into the public domain.
The CastAR remains augmented reality, not virtual reality. They've said there is a VR attachment but it has yet to be seen and given their projective technology seems a pretty nasty optical folding trick if it can be done at all.
Yeah, there are so many companies that I'd have picked over FB if I were them. Blizzard and Valve would have been excellent choices, though.
Sony announces Project Morpheus 6 days ago. Oculus sells to Facebook today and deal started 5 days ago (apparently).

This is either

a) Founders saw writing on the wall and decided to get paid early rather than have to compete with a company with much deeper pockets and a preexisting fanbase.

b) Facebook saw that Sony's announcement validated the space and decided to buy the company with most mindshare at the moment as it is an asset.

People have wondered why Microsoft didn't buy the company? Well, Oculus have seen what, $90M in funding so far? The investors would have wanted what.. 5X 10X ROI?

At 5X.. $450M is a metric fuckton (excuse the language) of money that they could throw at in-house development of something similar. I imagine having a VR kit that integrates heavily with Kinect has the potential to be huge, so they at least have to be thinking about it.
I think what's stupid is participating in a Kickstarter campaign and then getting bent out of shape when the company doesn't do what you want.

When you contribute -- note contribute, but invest -- to a Kickstarter campaign, you're buying into the perk you get and pretty much nothing else.

I can understand being upset that the company didn't do what you hoped, but considering it an investment is a bit of an overestimation.
So you are suggesting that most people will strap on a headset to consume social information of the type they currently consume on Facebook? (Photos of real life events, the thoughts and feelings of others, commentary on recent news, memes.)

Edit: just because social is a bigger area than gaming, does not mean VR is more likely to take off in that area. It entirely depends on how you actually use it and what experience it gives you.

You could argue that video calls would kill voice calls because video calls are "more immersive". Obviously that didn't happen. You could also argue that voice calls would kill text communication, because obviously talking with your voice is more natural. Again, it didn't happen - text communication is bigger than ever, look at WhatsApp. In the space of social, ease and speed of consumption trumps immersion.
Proper macro assemblers (covering at least the functionality used in this source code) have been available for the C64 since 1982, so it wasn't necessarily as hard as punching the instructions straight into RAM with a monitor cartridge.
I feel like 2014 will be the year of the big Kick Starter lawsuits where funders who feel betrayed by the projects they kicked in on turn angry. There have been number of movies funded that promised "downloadable versions" only to put those behind really awful drm websites on requirement of deals made with big companies to get the movies into theaters.
Google now deciding what you should write about
Go In Action
as Notch put it, "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition." (His post is worth reading for those who haven't yet: http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-...)
Notch didn't say Facebook acquiring Oculus was creepy. Notch said Facebook is creepy.

Besides tighter integration with Facebook, what has changed in Instagram since it was acquired by Facebook? Nothing.

You just pointed out exactly what changed with Instagram, and what everyone is afraid of changing with the Oculus.

"Log in to your Facebook account to continue playing."
This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
I'm reasonably sure I violated 10 laws since I woke up.
Yes, both. Fully locked in to the Facebook platform, with comprehensive data on everything we're reading and indeed thinking belonging to Facebook.
Working with Valve products, they are so god damn open. Api for a whole load of stuff, no serious attempts to lock down their non documented api/interfaces, games built on open technologies (all Dota network traffic is protobufs etc), and serious commitments to open source tech long term
There's a common wrong argument against this sort of boycott, but its comparably common rebuttal is subtly wrong as well.

common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.

subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.

While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:

"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."

To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.

In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.

[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...)
Google made me dumb, and I wonder what it did to you
Yea, all those early BFL investors are really rolling in their unregulated equity crowd funding cash these days.
I just don't believe that you can't be a successful founder and still have a life/family/healthy lifestyle.

Obviously situations like Adora's make for a good story, and that's a big part of why they spread. But, realistically: we are describing (mostly) young people who have forgone the steady jobs their peers all have to try making something enormous from literally nothing. They still have bills to pay, at least one mouth to feed, quite possibly student debt, family and friends who don't really understand any of it, and maybe even family and friends who put in money (makes for a pretty shitty Christmas dinner when your company only has 2 weeks of runway left, the next round isn't closing fast enough, and Uncle Johnny's already in it for too much). Of course with a bit of experience someone could avoid/mitigate some of those issues, and that's part of why organizations like YC exist, but it is in no one's interest to sugarcoat how difficult it really is to start a startup. Anyone who says founders tell these stories to brag about how hard they work has never done it.
Would love any feedback that the HN community has
Kickstarter needs a no-acquisition clause
Not sure if I've ever seen such a PR disaster this fast and upfront.
Why do people believe they're going back on their vision, or even on an unspoken promise? Perhaps the Oculus guys truly believe this acquisition is the way to realize the promise of the Rift. The Kickstarter contributors may not agree, but that's their problem, not the founders'.
Your Smartphone Is A Crucial Police Tool, If They Can Crack It
50% discount code: mlketelsen
Who is this supposed to be targeted at? Most retail traders' BTC acquisitions/dispositions don't hit the blockchain.
I can see myself, a few years in the future, using a VR headset daily. Watching movies, reading articles in a different format (just lying there rather than having to hold a book, Kindle or phone/tablet), watching something like TV with augmented social info, playing games, etc.

Years beyond that, if the resolution is there, I think virtual displays will replace the way many of us currently do work.
Snark aside, people tend to lose all sense of perspective and objectivity anytime Facebook is mentioned. Especially the crowd around here.

I really, really don't understand the pathological and irrational hate for Facebook and/or ads.
Y Combinator Demo Day Winter 2014, Batch 2 – The Dating Ring
I also used StartSSL class 1 for my site (peercube.com) and will highly recommend the help link you provided for getting and installing the certificate.
It would be even better if this was about more than gender. I am not one of the gender inequity deniers in this industry and I don't see anything wrong with valuing a better gender balance in the industry, in fact I think it's a good thing.

But love is such a loaded, unclear term. Why is it not good enough for someone to enjoy programming and have an intellectual curiosity about programming? To me that sounds like perfectly reasonable criteria to identify people who are a good fit for 3 months focused on programming. But you're basically saying that if it weren't for this gender inequity it would be totally reasonable to continue searching for a love of programming. It's hard enough for me to say I love my family and yet it was thought of as a good requirement to expect people to love programming to be qualified to participate in 3 months of programming in a community environment?
I'm also interested to see if the Second Life team gets shopped around, or if they will still try to stay independent.
Considering how many Firefox flaws were saved up for the recent hackathon (since the rewards are 6x what Mozilla usually pays as a bounty), I'm betting on at least a couple critical ones being unleashed the day after, though it may take some time for them to be caught.
For $300 those backers got the promise of an awesome VR headset. I don't see why they should get equity for free on top of that.

It would be nice if kickstarter campaigns could add equity as and option in the reward tiers, but it's not like these people gave their money for nothing in return.
You should ask a tax lawyer or an accountant. But a "garden" is unlikely to be a "farm" within the meaning of the federal code, especially if it's just a hobby activity rather than a bona fide business intended to make money. (See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p225.pdf, which notes that a farming business requires a profit intent.)

As for treating BTC as capital property--they are, under IRS decree--capital property for all US FIT. However, like all other capital property when received as compensation they are also income and get taxed like income. BTC doesn't get special rules just because it's digital.
I'm also curious the metric?
> scaling crisis for VR.

That's supposing Facebook knows how to scale production of electronic items... apart from the cash, they have no relevant experience about that. If it had been Google or Microsoft there would already be people who know how to make it scale to mass production.
What Brendan Eich does with his own money on his own time is none of my concern. His opposition to Google Dart is my concern and I wish he would lighten up about that.
Because it's free. Or they learned it over the years (and began with it, because it's free). IntelliJ is only $199, yet "professional" developers insist on using Eclipse. Like, $199 is too much to spend on your craft.

Screw FizzBuzz...the first question on an interview should be: Do you use Eclipse? That speaks volumes, far more than a silly set of "if" statements and making use of the modulus operator.
No, but my point is that most people still have a PC that doesn't run a Google OS, they just don't buy a new PC every 2 years - but that PC may see equal or greater use than their phone.
No, that's not what I argued. I agree with the notion that there's room for honest political disagreements within a community. However, I consider equal treatment of LGBT people to be a human right, and human rights don't fall under the spectrum of honest political disagreements.

Honest political disagreement are about the hows of accomplishing the humanity's goals of equal liberty and justice for all. Anti-marriage-equality advocates are about the outcome of said equal liberty and justice; that is, preventing it for LGBT people and treating them as second-class citizens.

> One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).

That's not accurate. I can tolerate the intolerant. I'm not asking for their civil liberties to be taken away like Prop 8 attempted to take away from LGBT people.

All I'm stating that I'm not going to be as supportive and praise of Mozilla and Firefox as I used to be. Don't get me wrong, Mozilla is still a great organization made up of wonderful people, and the whole organization shouldn't be ruined by the actions of one member. But that this one person now is the head of the organization tarnished it significantly.
Mobile First Text Alignment
Has anyone considered that the Oculus team was scared by Sony's Morpheus project and decided to cash out while they were still relevant?

I've not experienced either device, but I consider this at least plausible. Maybe Sony had already figured out solutions to problems Oculus was still toying with.
New word learned -

Strident
stri·dent
strīdnt/Submit
adjective
1. loud and harsh; grating.
"his voice had become increasingly sharp, almost strident"

synonyms: harsh, raucous, rough, grating, rasping, jarring, loud, shrill, screeching, piercing, ear-piercing
World-of-Warcraft-like MMO games allow for "character customization", but on a moment-to-moment basis, character models are mostly static. You can read an explicit display of emotion if they choose to "emote" one, but there are no continuous subtle cues about how a person is continuing to feel about something.

Now, one of the interesting things about VR is that, provided your perspective is attached to an avatar, the only sensible place to put the "camera" is staring right out of the eyes of that avatar. This means that, whenever you're among other players in a shared VR environment, you're going to be constantly staring at up-close views of other people's avatars' faces, who are in turn staring back at you. So, if your VR equipment could read your facial cues, and replicate them on your avatar's face...

Basically: what are the advantages, over using Skype, of having meetings in a physical office? A VR office should be able to replicate those advantages.
I'm listening. Are you? The parent of this thread quoted: "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."

If you didn't chip in ten grand of seed money for that purpose why didn't you make that part of the deal then?

There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed over.

Who cares about the value of their reputation when they've been bought by Facebook for some undisclosed value? Surely that's worth more to them than their reputation, seeing as they now have enough money to never work again with the people who'd care about their reputation.
Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity?

I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal...

Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...
Two informative decks from Michael Abrash:

http://media.steampowered.com/apps/abrashblog/Abrash%20Dev%2...

http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013...
Facts are not always available to us, especially when there is a lack of information / communication / when we discuss unprovable things like human motivations.

Who knows what the Oculus people are actually thinking? That's why we usually make hypothesis and conjectures: we can't prove it wrong or right, we still think something's fishy. I however agree that the tone of the article sounds too certain.
I am for gay marraige. Eich is against it. These facts don't necessarily make me a homophile or Eich a homophobe. We have differing views on what marraige means.
This doesn't answer your question and I'm sure you did your research, but just in case you didn't I would suggest you read this

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6847867

grellas does a really good job in dissecting the terms. Note this was over 3 months ago so their terms may have changed.
Carmack has started tweeting a bit about the deal, including:

"I have a deep respect for the technical scale that FB operates at. The cyberspace we want for VR will be at this scale."

"For the record, I am coding right now, just like I was last week.I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR."
I think for Carmack the situation is the same as when Id was acquired by Zenimax. So for anyone curious just look what happened then. He doesn't care, as long he can work on the stuff he wants to and he left Id because he couldn't do that( work on VR ). If he leaves Facebook, the reasons will be similar.
I'm sure this just means that the legal back and forth happened over five days, not that the deal started five days ago.

This recode article has more detail which makes this much less of a sensationalist story: http://recode.net/2014/03/25/in-googles-shadow-facebooks-zuc...
Over $1M from repackaging Project Gutenberg
Despite my dislike of facebook I think this may have been a smart play. Valve's largely vaporous VR tech was gaining mindshare and Sony has cash, manufacturing, retail presence, the list goes on and on. Without a huge bankroll Oculus may have ended just another piece of tech trivia.
The problem people have is that time and time again Facebook releases products, after massive amounts of engineering and research, that are focused on trivialities. Another way to flirt with people. Another way to post photos to the internet. A more fun way to read about the inane status update your ex-girlfriend posted about the food she just ate.

Look at Facebook's commercials, the ones where the person is on the phone reading about some random bullshit while they are at a dinner table with their family. Facebook wears their shallow view of human interaction on their sleeve: stupid interactions with your "friends" (ie, people you don't really see often in real life) are held up as some paragon of human communication. You don't discuss deep ideas on Facebook. You don't find information and increase human knowledge through Facebook. You don't experience new things or communicate with people outside of your comfort zone through Facebook.

Zuck gets on stage and talks about this world of global connections, and articulates this sweeping vision of a utopia where your whole life is enhanced by Facebook, but what we actually get are cat photos, fake cows, and people yukking it up about celebrity buzzfeed articles.

VR stands out as the tech with the most exciting potential of anything right now, and one that could be something that is driven by the entire community's imagination. Like the web was. The fear is that Facebook will devote its massive engineering resources towards applications of VR that are interesting and fun to 18 year olds trying to get laid, but on the whole not transformative for society in the way VR has the potential to be.

So fundamentally there are two questions. First, is Oculus going to have the latitude to grow its culture the way it was on track to, one which was centralized on applying VR in every way possible. On this front there is reason to be skeptical. The second question is if the environment for developing applications for VR is going to be an open, organic ecosystem despite the hardware provider being Facebook. This seems pretty unknowable, there isn't really a suitable analogy here. If VR takes off there very well could be entire platforms built for it, that recreate the computing experience as a whole. The fear is that this platform may very well be owned by Facebook, and will severely limit the latitude with which people can build experiences for VR.
I said: "well, stick in a fork in Nest then."
Does that count?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7053838
I wouldn't have hated this deal much if it was Microsoft.