• 1 Post
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • I can see that. If you just want to hang out in a space, then VR Skyrim definitely has some cool places to hang, but how long are you really going to spend in that Skyrim tavern?

    When OP asks whether VR is a long-term option, that’s what I think. My favorite 2D games I have 500+ hours, probably a half dozen of them; I can still go back to those, some 10+ year old, and sink another 50+ hours. The only VR game I have more than 50 hours is the mini-golf game that’s glorified chat.

    For me, VR as an experience has been really amazing. It’s a level of immersion that’s just indescribably better than anything 2D, but each of those experiences has had limited staying power, which I think is because the physical demands of VR constrain my playtime and focus. I can left-mouse-button all day, but my back gets sore if I stand for three hours. So I can handle beat saber because I treat it like a gym session, but the idea of VR walking 7000 steps to Skyrim’s Throat of the World…just no.


  • It’s not going to replace flat screen gaming. It’s hard to be in VR for hours, especially when you have to manage battery life, but I’ve had a headset for a year or two now, and it’s still amazing where it’s good. I’m better with smooth moving, but I still prefer teleporting, for headache/dizziness.

    Tried Skyrim, couldn’t make it stick - VR just isn’t right for massive open worlds. Halflife Alyx is amazing - it’s the right scale for VR, the attention to manipulatable objects is amazing, and some of the puzzles just couldn’t be done in 2D. Blade & Sorcery is good, too.

    Games I keep going back to are Beat Saber, because I’m old and need something to make me stand up and move, and Mini-golf, which is mostly a focus for hanging out with remote friends.


  • Yeah, rereading your text, I may have confused all the negatives and inferred that you support the post’s implication that they’re targeting children, but I meant to comment on the data in the context of ‘biggest bar,’ not to criticize opinions. Seeing OP’s chart, the first thing I wanted was a population chart, and I’m glad you’d already provided one.


  • The post title asks you to look at the “biggest bar,” which seems to imply that the biggest bars - children - must be targeted. OccamsTeapot population graph is important context because, as war-crimey as indiscriminantly bombing civilian populations is, intentionally targeting children feels so much like comic-book villany that people dismiss it as propaganda.


  • They do look pretty similar to me, but can’t say without numbers. Keeping in mind the population graph is a couple years old - half of a bar height - they both show a minor peak/inflection around age 30 that’s maybe 2/3 of the major peak around 5. Babies seem to be spared from the bombing, but that could be fewer births or increased non-violent infant mortality.

    IMO, it’s not a great data set to claim Israelis are intentionally targeting children, but it is pretty good for saying they are not intentionally targeting military-age men.





  • No. If you’ve been saving for 30 years, then you’ll have 30 years of accumulated 10±20% annual gains, which should be something like 16x your start, but could be 100x if you’re lucky or 1x if you’re not. Regardless, an historic crash on retirement day may take that down to 12x your start, which is still pretty good, and will be fixed by the following couple years.



  • I really enjoy lying in a warm, comfortable bed, especially a little groggy from sleep. I’m happy to wake up an hour or so ahead of my alarm so I can have that experience. That said, if my mind is really racing with anticipation of the day’s concerns, it kind of wrecks the lie-in. I’ll get up an hour or two early, have an extra special breakfast, start chores or some other thing I didn’t think I had time for.










  • A target date fund on that horizon is going to be shifting its assets from stocks into bonds and TIPS, but is still going to have most of the volatility of VTSAX. If you’re comfortable with the possibility of having negative return over 5 years, then you might as well VTSAX. If you need for the savings to grow, then you probably want less stock exposure than a future target date fund.

    For reference, the historical 5-year return on US stocks is anywhere from +30% to -10%, annualized. Even over 10 years, you’ve got about 1-in-8 chance of losing money. I mean, the stock market is definitely the best way for most people to grow money over time, and the economy looks pretty good right now, but Time is definitely doing the heavy lifting, and almost no one ever forsees the event(s) that trigger crises. 5 years is pretty short term.