Yes. Video games fulfill the need to succeed by fighting for good, building useful things, accomplishing objectives, building relationships, etc without actually doing those things, and wasting a great deal of your time (4+ hours per day recommended by this study!) doing so. The same way sugary crap tastes delicious but just wastes calories that could otherwise go to nutritious food.
We're all giving our lives up to something. Do you really want to give your life away to hollow fake accomplishment?
Isn't everything a fake accomplishment? If I like baking cakes does it mean I accomplished something by doing so? And conversely if I'm a runner does it mean it's fake because I'll never beat the world record?
When you say that, the example that pops into my mind is Stardew Valley. It's very satisfying as an escape because it provides periodic rewards while abstracting away nearly all potential sources of frustration. I'd be a little concerned about spending too much time immersed in that in a way that wouldn't bother me so much about other hobbies.
Yes, back when I played WoW excessively I almost lost my job. Losing your job is pretty high in terms of things that bring you harm, both mental and physical harm.
This is highly dependent on the user, though it is a common problem. I've personally never had any motion sickness in VR, whether playing flight sims (including helicopters) or driving sims.
I've always felt like flying cars are a solution looking for a problem. Massive deployment of flying cars has similar problems to cars on the ground (need space to land/park, airspace isn't unlimited, humans can't be trusted to fly safely). Additionally, they don't go fast enough to glide and don't have enough rotor mass to perform an autorotation in the event of total power loss. I doubt they're viable as a method of transportation at any large scale.
EDIT: Not to mention the much worse energy efficiency - staying in the air is _expensive_.
It's kind of mind blowing that our cheap peripherals are driven by what used to be top-of-the-line processors only a few decades ago. I guess all that firmware has to run on something.
As I mentioned in another comment, already the ca. 1987 Amiga 2000 in this article had a 6502 compatible core on the keyboard controller, and some same era hd controllers had Z80's on them - they were cheap already then.
That's a tautology, like saying the largest predictor of how many languages you will speak is if you are born into a multilingual home regardless of how well your language centers develop.
The better metric would be correlating someone's socio-economic class at birth with deltas in wealth later in life. I'd be very surprised to find a radically different conclusion, but at the least it'll give us more actionable data. After all, trying to eradicate advantages-by-birth might be the most futile exercise in human history but maybe we can adjust for them as we grow to learn more about the statistical relationship.
> After all, trying to eradicate advantages-by-birth might be the most futile exercise in human history
A 100% inheritance tax would be nigh-impossible in practical terms but in abstract it would go a long way to further the end of creating a society more closely based on merit.
It might be predictive, but given that inherited traits exist and that there are selection effects that favor the stronger traits, that may not tell the whole story.
The thing about wealth transfer is it doesn't depend on genes at all.
I'm sure there are literal lapdogs endowed with more net worth and power than I have by their owners.
edit: I should clarify that wealth is not correlated with gene quality or fitness, but it may follow familial/social/emotional connections of the wealthy that seem to point to a "good lineage". Case in point: royal families
You misunderstand, I'm saying the traits that allow one to succeed (e.g. intelligence) can be inherited and correlate with the accrual of wealth. Though you are absolutely correct that social connections to other wealthy people create new opportunities as well.
Inheritance, assuming the families have on average more than one child in each generation and the split is even, dilutes a family's fortunes over time. It would be correct to point out that the rules of some dynasties take this into account (head vs. branch families) and prevent this.
I'm not disputing that one's starting position is important, I'm just saying it's not an unchangeable fact of life. One of the reasons YC exists is to help people find the opportunity to become wildly successful by making some of the necessary conditions (money, connections) more accessible to those with talent. And that's a wonderful thing.
Even for myself, I used to do grunt work in a factory. Now I work from home at a cushy software job thanks to things I obtained here. Maybe I won't ever make billions, or become the next Elon Musk, but I'm happy enough just to celebrate my own successes and work to improve my own lot in life.
Newegg has a "large format display" category for big monitors. 46" seems to be a popular size. There's some pretty cheap 1080p ones in there, but I don't know anything about their image quality.
