The culture is correct, the new version of Outlook is hot garbage

The new version of outlook is our only hope of escaping the IE 6 email renderer in classic outlook, sadly.

Which "new" Outlook? I think there's like 3 versions of Outlook currently on the market. The Classic Win32 one they want you to stop using, the new Lite variant bundled for free with Windows 11, and the new Full Spec one that comes with Office 365, both of which are built on web technologies IIRC.

That one that comes with office 365. My work PC got auto updated with it and I switched back to the Win32 version within an hour because it was buggy and a huge resource hog. It's just an email client and calendar, there's no need to keep reinventing the wheel, especially if you're just gonna make it worse.

The macOS version still has all of them beat.

this is a crew laptop and not a mission critical computer at all.

since the astronauts are asking about it i'm guessing it wasn't snuck onboard. Sneaking stuff on to spacecraft to play with on the moon was a thing, i think one of the Apollo astronauts smuggled a golf club and balls to hit on the moon.

(I realize this mission is to only orbit and not land on the moon)

That info puts things into perspective thanks.

> a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet

The brightest minds we had working in government have all quit or been fired in the last year.

To wit: Hegseth immediately demanded the loyalty or resignation of the entire officer corps upon taking office. Anyone who would’ve been the voice of reason likely resigned a year ago.

The primary selling points of cryptocurrencies are all hinged on the promise that they are decentralized and can't be controlled by a single entity. Without that, all they are is a new version of PayPal or a credit card network that requires many orders of magnitude more compute resources to maintain.

This would drive me insane! I'm glad I ditched Gmail altogether.

Both can have their place. I'm pretty familiar with the podman cli, but having a dashboard I can access from a bookmark in my browser is handy when I just want a quick overview of everything.

Republicans are only deficit hawks when it comes to spending money on things every day people benefit from. If they actually gave even a single shit about the deficit, they wouldn't hand billionaires massive tax breaks every single time they take power.

Reagan campaigned against Carter’s profligate spending.

It really is like our body politic is still mentally stuck in 1980. It's crazy. Republicans still campaign on "balancing the budget" while demonstrably being responsible for all the major explosions of debt we have experienced in our lifetime.

The whole thing is absurd.

And then blew up the deficit and started our massive accumulation of debt. A pattern gleefully followed by every single Republican administration since. Every single Democratic administration since has reduced the deficit the "spend and give tax breaks" Republicans have run up. But it's a losing battle clearly.

Carter reduced the deficit as well until the recession hit in 1979 and tax revenues decreased.

And then proceeded to blow up the deficit even more himself. What they campaign on and what they actually do are different things.

Fiscal conservatism is a lie, Republicans have consistently contributed far more to the debt than Democrats, at least during my lifetime.

I rarely hear Republicans actually call themselves fiscally conservative.

It seems more like an abandoned stance than a lie at this point.

Well, you occasionally hear some chest thumping from Republicans about being “deficit hawks”. Fairly sure they all voted for the latest tax cuts.

Because raising taxes was never part of their deficit reduction strategy. Not that it matters, being fiscally conservative was never an honestly held belief but simply a campaign slogan.

Raising taxes was never part of their deficit reduction strategy, sure. But we're talking about the fact that they cut taxes. You can't fix a deficit by reducing income.

Did you somehow miss the marketing spiel (propaganda) for DOGE??

VR will probably always be pretty niche for gaming. Even with affordable headsets, there is still a lot of friction to their daily usage that limits their appeal

- VR sickness

- Lack of physical space in people's homes

- Don't really work as a shared experience without multiple headsets

On top of that, this company in particular is Facebook. Nobody likes Facebook.

I am one of those people who love VR gaming done well. There is a game called Super Rumble built by what I think is a subsidiary of Meta. It's a very well executed arena FPS concept. There are just a couple dozen people in the world who are really skilled and play enough for me to recognize them and be glad they're playing when I'm also online. It's magical when there are good people on this thing playing together.

I hope it's something we can figure out how to propagate despite the seemingly limited interest. I suspect anyone who liked playing quake arena games would love this game if they are not susceptible to motion sickness.

I recently started exploring how to port open source shooters (red eclipse, warsow, nexuiz) to the platform and realized there are several considerations that make games designed for VR special that a pure port wouldn't hit.

I think VR gaming can easily grow 10x - 100x by having cheaper, better fidelity, less bulky hardware and a better games library.

I bet plenty of gamers haven't bought their first headset yet despite being interested.

You're not wrong, but it also seems the most plausible use of VR for now. Those shortcomings also apply to Horizon Worlds.

>> These glasses though, seem really dumb. I doubt they will ever be ubiquitous.

Apparently they sold 7 million of these things according to the latest report, so at least some people like them(or the idea of them).