skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem is that before, Oculus was the product. Now they've sold to a company where you are the product. That's a backstab, the business model has done a 180 degree turn.

Will developers really let Facebook own the VR platform? We all know that as soon as they're unlodgable Facebook will update the EULA and start sucking in every scrap of user data they possibly can. I bet they're salivating over the eye tracking data that will eventually come. Already Oculus includes a camera that is always looking at you.

That might be OK for free apps, but it's not OK for a paid product that was until now allied with Valve who sell quality, paid content.

The community is now going to fracture, half going with the momentum, half going back to the drawing board.
I believe they're protesting not his opinions, but his efforts to have his opinions turned into laws.

It's one thing to be against gay marriage. It's quite another to spend one's own money on outlawing it.
The problem with Oculus kickstarter project was that you were buying a dev kit, not a final product. So now they sell the company and you have a dev kit for a facebook product... and the final usage of the Oculus may be very different than the one you thought it was going to be when you purchased the dev kit.

That cannot happen with other kickstarter projects that sell a final product like bumper stickers, buttons... In this case, the only difference with a normal purchase is that you buy the product before they manufacture it, so the startup avoids taking risks.
> Facebook chat in two years: put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars. Skype and Google+ Hangouts suddenly seem very 20th century.

This doesn't happen in two years at all -- it's hard to keep track, but Google Glass has been in its public beta release for over a year and yet there are no people walking around using them, at least where I'm from.

Plus I think most of us are still using the keyboard (be it virtual or physical) to tap instant messages and email -- if VR would be so mature in two years that we'd be able to do a lot of things through a virtual world, why haven't we ditched keyboards straight away?

There is likely a user input revolution around the corner, but I'd be looking at the 2024 date or later. This is probably a good reason why to be concerned about the purchase -- Facebook seems unlikely to care about Oculus games beyond what Oculus promised in their Kickstarter.
Pluralism does not equal correct.

Slavery, women's suffrage, Japanese internment, separate-but-equal ... the list goes on and on.
The author says "But we know that Brendan has already inserted his views on our relationships where those views don't belong: into the workings of the government, by means of making a political donation. " Isn't the whole point of democracy to insert your views into the workings of the government. To make political donations to people that you think have similar points to you? If you can't make a political donation, with your own money, then what can you do?

One thing I don't get, do people think this guy is going to be a miserable leader and a bad businessman? Does the author think only people who believe the same things as the author can lead?

The title was "against tolerance." I thought the author was going to rant about how intolerant some gays are. But instead he is saying he won't tolerate someone else having an opinion that differs with his own.

I would be willing to bet every CEO out there has made a political contribution or voted for someone that "interfered" with the authors personal life.
You reckon Facebook is like the Borg?
If someone happens to be born in a country with worse labor opportunities, should we just say "have you tried being born in the US?" Articles like the Gawker one you link to only make sense if American workers are the only ones who matter.
AFAIK Mac is a type of Personal Computer. As long as games would not be locked to console with joystick being only option I would be happy.
I draw the line at if you can make a logical argument, there are many logical arguments for not eating meat. There are no convincing logical arguments for opposing gay marriage that don't involve bringing mystical wizardry into play.
The most exciting consumer technology this year... DOA. On the bright side, I hope Facebook continues this cluelessness and burns through the rest of their bank roll buying decent companies.

With privacy being a huge issue, thanks to the NSA, and kids not wanting to belong to the same social network as their parents... it's over. I think these companies they're buying won't survive being tainted by their association with FB.

I'm aware that 2 billion is a drop in the bucket, but I'm hoping Zuckerberg goes on a buying spree, pisses through enough money purchasing, and eventually trying to bail out, once decent companies, that it quickens the demise of the company.
That is a fantastically creative straw man you just beat up there...

Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away.

But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit their job...?

It's pretty incredible how good Republicans are at convincing themselves they're the victim. In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws. Just lol, must be tough having people criticize you for taking away other people's rights. I feel terrible for you guys. Now those peoples rights you took away? Nah, they deserved it!
I would be very, very surprised if there weren't a few window-less rooms in Cupertino with prototype HMDs bolted to tables in them :)
There's actually other reasons one could support Prop 8 without necessarily being anti-LGBT. This includes an opposition to all marriage in general, or a desire to keep the traditionalist definition of "marriage" and have the same rights for non-traditional couples under a different moniker, a perceived triviality of the issue (whether rationally justified or not) and so on.

I do not approve of his actions, but there's plenty of other variants besides "Eich is a despicable homophobe."

Of course, outrage porn is very popular in our interconnected society these days. As for me, I'll keep using Mozilla's products and learn to draw a line between technical accomplishments and political views. Mozilla's contributions to FOSS are far too great to brush them off over something like this.
I don't know, I think 'Clang' will forever have that honor.
"If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life"

Not to stray from the point of the article, but the politician analogy is very appropriate. My wife is a former lobbyist, and I've met and grown to know many prominent politicians from a behind-the-scenes perspective.

The number of arranged marriages, to the point that it's mostly a business relationship, is really common, especially at the national level. Most of the time, the politician's "spouse" is really just their operations manager.
Sony is probably happy as heck since it effectively resets everything to give their project a chance. Also, I am a little sick of the "joined" terminology. You got bought and are no longer in control of your companies destiny. Unless you pull a NeXT, "joined" is not true.
Crushing. Their competitors now must have enough extra revenue to buy an expensive couch.
At first glance, it might not seem obvious why Oculus is partnering with Facebook, a company focused on connecting people, investing in internet access for the world and pushing an open computing platform.

An "open computing platform"? What are they talking about?
I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going to be a liability in the future. But voicing an opinion against him is also a liability - there is no telling how the zeitgeist might change ten or twenty years from now. I think it's best to voice no opinion at all - and I hope this comment is not misconstrued as support for any particular position.
Just because your religion says so doesn't mean I have to follow it. I'm not trying to make you change your religion - you can live the way you want - but that is not the way I want.

The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make everyone atheist.
I'm happy Oculus got my money for the original devkit, and I spent several hours enjoying it. As far as kickstarter, it's hard to fault them.
He invented Javascript.
This is really nicely done, but it'd be nice to have some sound and/or popup notification when it's running in the background.
Indeed...

The problem with Oculus kickstarter project was that you were buying a dev kit, not a final product. So now they sell the company and you have a dev kit for a facebook product... and the final usage of the Oculus may be now very different than the one you thought it was going to be when you purchased the dev kit...
What a legend. Amazing that the previous company would not listen to him. I guess it's the old case of the tech lead not being compatible with the MBA playbook so he left. Maybe Harvard should update their list of 'When these people speak listen' as it's obviously way way out of date.
And over in a few days/weeks. It's a trend that comes from a gut feeling more than rationalization.

I really believe people will change their mind about Facebook now that Facebook is not just the social network but also Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus.
The backlash is a bit silly, though I also find the acquisition surprising. I suspect that companies with any sort of capital investment in a rift-based-game will continue development.

That being said, Oculus owned by Facebook is a different sort of animal than independent Oculus. Previously, they had to sell the public on a $2-300 VR gaming headset or die. Now they have a lot more wiggle room. Personally, I feel more comfortable working with companies that have as much skin as I do in the game. I understand why the shift would unsettle people.
What do you mean there aren't any laws? You hand people money in exchange for their non-legally binding vague promises. This model of exchange has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Legally speaking Kickstarter is nothing new.

If I meet someone on the street that promises me to try out some new idea and I give them money the courts aren't going to give me any more credence than someone who handed a $50 bill to a bum. How is this in any way a new and novel legal situation?

The only thing that's new is that now due to the Internet more people have the ability to easily give out their money to potentially stupid initiatives.
It'll stop us from getting consistently outraged at various people over their personal convictions and save us more energy to enjoy their work, which is often unrelated to the former.

Talent is a highly subjective measure. No doubt there are people as equally or more talented than Eich, but he is the creator of JavaScript, which is the fundamental language of the web and everyone's favorite double-clawed hammer to hammer in nails with, whether you like it or not.
True enough, though certainly the same with Microsoft, and possibly Google (Android only?). Maybe Facebook will be the one really only open one? I only worry that real games will not get a chance and we'll have a glut of "Totally Immersive Candy Crush!!!"
Dribbbox
Two billion USD.
Corollary: Why create a game when you can implement cool new engine tech?
True. But back then there was no other option for crowd funding. That's only changing just now as the SEC is finally implementing the crowd funding provisions of the JOBS act.
Not really, it's having the ability to hack on human behavior, to make large amounts of people do things. Buying things is the obvious example, but there are other things (like giving X some attention, push a political cause, convince them of something ...)

And yes, you're of course right that things like this wouldn't convince X. That's not the point. The point is that 0.1% of facebook's audience is one massive group of people.
This is a good example except that Halo sucks. Its popular, but weak.
Another point - If a batch of developers really are abandoning Oculus (which remains to be seen), then it's also an opportunity for other developers to move in.
Wanting gay people to be able to have the same rights as you is hardly a "flavor of the month."
To give a more specific view on how bad this could evolve, please take a look at Episode 3 of Season 1 of the amazing mini-series "Black Mirror"[1].

That said. I expect computer security and privacy to be taken extremely seriously in the years as we proceed in the internet of things where our lives will be televised. Really, escaping will be virtually impossible, so we need to make sure that some breaches are severely punishable.

Technology is tool, the more powerful the tool the more good or damage can do.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Mirror_episodes#S...
If you're interested in this, check out Fabien Sanglard's code review of Another World[1], which is one of the more notable VM based games, managing to target a multitude of different platforms with some impressive vector graphics for it's time.

Also very interesting is the Emscripten port of ioquake3, which includes a custom compiler for Quake 3 VMs to Javascript.

[1] http://fabiensanglard.net/anotherWorld_code_review/

[2] http://www.inolen.com/articles/compiling-quake-3-virtual-mac...
The irony for me is that interacting with other people is the last reason I want a Rift. I want a fully immersive total escape from reality. When I play games, the last thing I want to be is "social."
It's emotional, but common, what is the proper reaction if one of the greats thing is bought by one of the worst? The only scenario worse than this i can image is Oracle.

How would you feel if SpaceX, if you invested in it's technology, would have been bought by John Deere? This is more tragic than the acquisition of Bell Labs by Alcatel.
With No Meaningful Position Beyond Flash Gaming Platform Mochi Media Will Close
Well, if you don't buy the fundamental rights argument, let's try a simple utilitarian argument.

The computer industry, especially in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, employs an abnormally high percentage of people who identify as LGBT. The fact that your company will now have trouble recruiting from that group of individuals places your company at a business disadvantage and makes you unfit to lead such a business.
sorry. basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income

see Ludwig von Mises
Not really. It is easy to sweep things under the rug when you're not one of those affected legally, financially, emotionally. I know of people who decided to leave their careers, their homes, and move to another country so that they could be with someone they love. Those decisions changed their lives and it isn't something that just goes away.
He could have negotiated something better. But so would Oculus.
If it's not a choice or a belief, is it genetic?
Hahaha, just posted about it above (or below?) :-))
[an optimistic thought] I feel like a lot of people might be overthinking the Facebook/Oculus integration. FB is a big company with lots of money that is still figuring out how to make money. Oculus seems like a company that could make money in a way that diversifies FB's income. Maybe if they just own Oculus and let the smart people at the helm do what they do best (I feel like Zuckerberg can recognize the smart people in charge of Oculus) it will just be a good company that earns money for Facebook so Facebook can keep doing what it does. I know Zuck mentions VR and social together in his post, but maybe he just feels compelled to justify the purchase in relation to what Facebook is known for.
Why does rarebit pulling their app represent a lack if respect for personal beliefs? Why is it ok for Eich to do what he will but not ok for others to act in response to that? That's bullshit.

Actions have consequences. Actions have consequences.
An excellent valuable product is essential to be at the core of all growth initiatives.
The world's reaction is also negative. They don't want to wear a box strapped to their face to interact with their friends. Seriously, look at the reaction on Twitter by non-gamers and Facebook users. It's being met with incredulity and mockery.
You mean beside money and the assurance that they will have enough funding to do anything?
By "finding deviants", I mean exactly what the NSA is doing, and what every Keystone police department will be doing in ten years. And yes, improving advertisements is horrible - this is precisely one of the anti-human facets I am talking about.

> It has a lot of applications in science, could vastly improve medicine, it's used to predict energy usage for power plants, filter spam, recommend movies or products, improve harvests for farming, etc

You're right. My initial comment was way too harsh and broad for indicting the whole field rather than just the in-our-face web scene applications.

> lastly calling a technology "bad" isn't actually helpful. We can't stop bad people from using the technology

Of course you can't uninvent something, but you can slow down or speed up it's progress. Path dependence is a thing. Currently, most people do not feel empowered with respect to computers. The more we put them at the mercy of seemingly unpredictable computer systems that are actually trying to outwit them, the harder it is going to be for them to get over those feelings of disempowerment so that we can get to a place where people expect their computers to work for them.
WhatsApp was only the first of several big acquisitions for Facebook
If any programmer was worth a $2 billion acquihire - it's John Carmack.
I strongly disagree with #1.
Except you can't assume you're right and use that as the basis of an argument against someone who you thinks you're wrong. You'll get nowhere with that. It's the same thing your opponent does too.

It always bothers me when listening to (or reading) a debate and both sides say that the other side isn't being logical. Well, you can't both be logical and still be in contradiction with each other.
Sorry but I have to disagree with this and the above. There is a fundamental difference in the Google Cloud platform which caters to (paying!) customers and has (paid!) support vs. a playground free service for end users like Google Reader.

The "meh" of GCE so far has really just been that it is behind the times vs. AWS kicking out new features monthly and is years late to the game.

When they keep adding features to their ecosystem (and driving down prices like the crazy cheap $0.02/GB cost of storage vs $0.68/GB for S3) usage will keep increasing.

I haven't had or heard of a single customer not choosing GCE because they are worried it is just going away, it is just lack of an ecosystem and knowledge/awareness from the end-user that these Google services are something worth looking at.
$40 million.
Literally no one is hating them for getting big, everyone hates Facebook and doesn't want Oculus (which makes awesome technology) ruined by them.
The whole point of barter is that the stuff traded by each side has roughly equivalent value to the traders.

Seems like the tax rules outlaw pure barter and make you use dollars in your transaction whether you want to or not.
Even aquisitions from those companies would have been met with disappointment. I think folks were hoping for Oculus to stay independent.
You mean 2 Billion Dollars. That's a number beyond greed. That means you are taking care of you, your family, and your employees. Everyone can take the moral high road but if you were staring at a contract like that, could you really say you would turn it down?

You also have no idea of the terms. For all we know Oculus will still act as an independent agency only with better access to talent, much more capital access, and a huge advertising method-facebook itself!

Or they are devoured by facebook and never see the light of day. Either way, it's 2 billion dollars and all the financial freedom that comes with having that much money.

(Yes I know most of it's in stocks, but unlike everyone else I don't think people realize, facebook isn't going away in the next few years, they are a microsoft-a lumbering giant branching out through tech acquisitions).
So let's play this through in an imaginary scenario.

Next year I decide I like my neighbor, who's running for governor in the American Nazi party. I write him a check for $500.

So now I can't work in the tech industry? Really? And this makes sense to folks?

So you're saying thinking is okay, but acting is not. So is there some list of things I can and can't do and expect to have a job? Or is it just made up off-the-cuff by anybody with an internet search and an axe to grind?

Do you realize how chilling this is? We're going to raise an entire generation of tech leadership who are acutely tuned never to do anything publicly that might indicate they have an opinion -- and are smart enough to hold all their real feelings inside, no matter how terrible. It's bad for those folks, it's bad for the industry, and it's bad for the rest of us. It's just bad all the way around.

We all have to vote the same way, give money to the same causes, say the same things -- or face collective group punishment. And this seems sane?
It's pretty much inconceivable that he'd have a "standard options package"

He would have been courted, offered a substantial slice of equity, and his contribution and membership of the leadership team (he's the CTO!) would have significantly contributed to the valuation.

He'd have made out huge-time.
You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay?

And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's job description? If a person who has donated to an unfavored group in the past is not an appropriate candidate for CEO anywhere anymore: Is he okay to be the CTO? COO? VP of Engineering? An engineering team lead? A project architect with technology leadership only?

And the cause: if donating to Prop 8 is bad, is donating to a politician who supported Prop 8 or legislation to similar effect bad? How about donating to the politician's party?

I don't see any great places to draw a clear line and say "Okay, if I keep this side of <x> about a controversial issue, it will be recognized as legitimate political activity by all people on all sides, and my career will not be subject to boycotts in the future." I mean, sure, it's great that you draw the line somewhere less ridiculous, but not particularly comforting in the big picture of things.

Any just cause could land on the wrong side of popular opinion eventually - indeed, this cause was on the wrong side of popular opinion only a few decades ago. And this really isn't the kind of principle of political interaction that you can cheer on in a content-neutral way: I therefore contend that we shouldn't cheer it on in a content-specific way either.
I disagree.

People have died for the right to speak their minds so don't live in fear of what may or may not happen.

If you have an opinion, voice it. If somebody is going to discriminate against you because of your opinion, then they are the bigot.

Don't let political correctness silence you.
It's Carmack. It's possible he'll use the money to restart Armadillo, doing pretty much exactly what Musk did!
> Google for the existing experience and culture of innovation

Perfect contrast with Facebook.