Pepsi

why is everyone judging me for the people I choose to associate with?

It’s great.

It’s the choice of a new generation.

If the only reason you’re keeping it is to make and post YouTube videos, it doesn’t sound like you wish you could delete it.

yeah originallucifer is pretty much talking out of his ass.

all i can say is that this does happen from time to time. a while ago there was a few day lag on a single episode of The Price is Right. i wouldn’t worry too much.

Dude you obviously aren’t going to listen.

You decided this product isn’t going to be useful for anyone because you personally don’t see any utility.

You’re personally offended Apple didn’t make a VR headset for you. I’m sorry kid.

What I don’t get is the caustic hostility you’re displaying in this thread about a product for creative professionals and tradesmen (of which you are neither).

we know you can’t lol

that doesn’t mean they don’t exist though

You’re a retail consumer and you’re confused why all of the messaging you’re seeing is geared towards retail consumers?

why would it need to be a massive immediate retail success?

moreover, why do you seem so irritated that you might not be the target audience here?

do you seriously think retail consumers are the demographic Apple is trying to capture right now?

talk to some creative professionals & craftsmen. my company used to work with hololens on a regular basis but there way too much jank in how it performed in a live setting. If the Vision Pro provides even the same level of utility but manages to make live object rendering & tracking consistent and reliable, they’re going to sell truckloads. Hollywood alone has probably 100 different ways to use this tech on set to slim creative workflows and save time (and therefore money). a $5000 headset is practically a rounding error when your principals cost 10x that per hour.

i’m like way, way late on this, but i just stumbled on this thread and have to say your analysis is well thought out and you explained time travel narrative structures very succinctly.

but your analysis completely falls apart because, and i’m not sure how, but you missed the entire fucking point of Terminator 1. In the extended edition of T2 there’s a scene in the first 15 minutes where Kyle explains it again for those in the back.

"The future is not set.”

added in T2,

"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

That’s what Kyle comes back to explain to Sarah. Until she understands that message and acts on it, Kyle is acting in a “ST” structure. Once the terminator is destroyed by Sarah, the MT is opened up. We can speculate that Kyle was supposed to kill the terminator with his last pipe bomb, but really any moment could have caused that schism. What’s important is that Sarah is now self-reliant in terms of killing machines. Fate is what Sarah was fighting, almost a meta-antagonist. That is her struggle through the entire Terminator franchise.

Terminator 1 is a time travel story that starts as a ST narrative, and by Sarah’s actions in the final act, becomes a MT narrative. T2 just further explores the opened-up MT narrative. There’s no inconsistency between the final moment of T1 and the opening of T2. Your gripe seems to be entirely with the first movie based on a limited understanding of the larger themes and philosophies explored in the narrative.

Terminator 2 is a damn fine sequel and a hell of a film on its own merit.

I don’t think my “window of experience” has any impact on the objective reality that cable had ads from square 1.