Advertising always shows an exaggerated presence of young children. People like things that are cute and associate positive attitudes with them. I've seen real estate stock photos of offices with people holding toddlers and sometimes businesses like local insurance companies will advertise with just a giant picture of a baby's face; it's the kind of thing you see on bus benches and billboards.

For the millennial generation, dogs are actually the new kids in advertising - but you can't strap a VR headset onto a dog

> but you can't strap a VR headset onto a dog

I think that means you just haven't tried hard enough. I know for a fact an advert of a dog with a vr set strapped on would get my attention

It would be a humourous / memorable advertisement of done well. I can even imagine the tagline: "So easy everyone in the family can use it".

Sez you...

https://youtu.be/ZqCOeECBfR8

The landing page has an illustration of the Firefox fox with a VR headset on, which is almost there

I was going to say, kids are a huge turn off. I run the hell away from any products with kids in their advertisements.

Meanwhile I pay for a membership to a dog park with alcohol and social events : https://fetchparkatl.com

My attitude towards having children may change one day, but it's just not the world we're living in right now.

Having (and loving) kids counts as default and when you don’t, you’re at least strange or your social integrity can be denied. Sadly, people went a long road to accept all sorts of sexualities, race equality, et cetera (minorities never were a trigger for me from the start), but still put ‘defaultness’ on pedestal. One with no kids can more likely get fired, their desires sacrificed, and so on in otherwise equal conditions. It feels like people did not just erase the border, but drew yet another which now encompasses a slightly bigger circle. We are still outside and this is barely going to change, since those who have kids seem to change on a psychological level and cannot think the other way.

> ... those who have kids seem to change on a psychological level and cannot think the other way.

They do. It's like a switch gets flipped. Or like an ~instant ~unkickable addiction.

Well, it's how our species survive the 2 millions years so far.

You can't quite transcend biology just yet...

Well, you can just not have kids. Then you don't flip into parenting mode. That was largely intentional for me. Although a couple wives were pretty persuasive. And I've been propositioned for sperm a few times. By women who liked my style, but could see that I'd make a shitty parent.

VR is just "screen time" reaching its logical extreme conclusion. Put another way "fully addressable visual cortex".

It'll get really weird when "glued to your phone" starts being literal as wearable AR stuff gets adhesive bonds.

> "fully addressable visual cortex".

I prefer the concept of visual cortex framebuffer.

Neuralink will be filling your visual cortex soon enough. :)

In my experience kids younger than 7 don't do well in VR.

Part of that is using the game controller blind, and having small hands as well. A controller designed for younger kids might help.

> In my experience kids younger than 7 don't do well in VR.

I know anecdote is not data but my 4yr old loves feeding his dinosaur in Oculus Quest 'Bogo' game. I limit his VR time to about 15-20 mins/week but he would love to do more if I allowed. I only use the base Quest headset straps/controller - no custom setup. He can easily press the different buttons on the controllers and move around as well as my 60yr old mom.

I had heard that there are concerns about children using VR and how it could affect their development. The Oculus Health and Safety Guide says:

> This product should not be used by children under the age of 13. Adults should monitor children (age 13 and older) who are using or have used the Headset for any of the symptoms described below, and should limit the time children spend using the Headset and ensure they take breaks during use. Prolonged use should be avoided, as this could negatively impact hand-eye coordination, balance, and multi-tasking ability. Adults should monitor children closely during and after use of the headset for any decrease in these abilities.

https://scontent.oculuscdn.com/v/t64.5771-25/12331258_477090...

There is nothing shown about this (who would approve that controlled study?), just lots of suspicions (as usual). Screen time in general is bad for kids’ developing eyes, however.

The precautionary principle suggests limiting time until it’s proven that there’s no impact on young, developing brains

Nothing can be proven like that. They can’t even run studies, so without any further information, usage among kids will grow anyways (because kids think it’s fun and lots of parents will ignore suspicions).

I’m not going to nit pick on what “proven” means, and studies on this kind of thing certainly can be run, they just haven’t yet. That’s why caution is being applied.

A controlled study on the effects of VR on children would involve running experiments on lots of children. Try getting that by your clinical ethics board....

I doubt it. Most don't have nearly the stamina for a VR headset as they do for a regular screen.

Even as an adult, 30-60 minutes is about all I can physically take, no matter how engrossed in the game/movie/etc. I am.

How much of this fatigue for you is with your eyes? How much is it with your head/neck?

I just wonder, because even when they "set" the focus of these HMDs to "infinity", your eyes are still technically only looking at a screen at a fixed distance, mere inches away. Everything I have read about so-called "simulator sickness" and other maladies in HMDs have said that eye fatigue results from this "fixed focus" issue. It doesn't cause as much issue for pilots training in simulators, because the actual screen being projected on is several feet away from their eyes, allowing them to become more naturally focused toward "infinity" (parallel).

I also wonder about the head and neck areas and fatigue. Most of the HMDs - while lightweight compared to systems of the 1990s - still seem like they have a lot of "nose weight", and aren't balanced on the head. Proper balance (fore/aft and laterally) is crucial to long-term use with lower fatigue, even with a light weight HMD. Also, the more weight that rests on the bridge of the nose, the worse the amount of fatigue.

Much of this knowledge is based on research that was done in the 1990s and earlier, both with those early HMD systems, and other earlier simulator systems. I'm continually surprised that current commercial offerings seems to either be unaware of such research, or that they ignore it for the sake of marketing (distributing the weight on the head results in a more "helmet like" HMD, which probably isn't as saleable to the public; ultimately, the public probably would like to see something as lightweight and wearable like a pair of sunglasses, but current display and optics technology isn't there yet - if it ever will be).

Cannot speak for OP, but for me, personally, it is the type of things I use VR for that exhausts me. I mostly use it for games, which requires standing and moving around (depending on the game, it can be quite a bit). So I mostly get physically exhausted and sweaty, which prompts me to take the headset off. No motion sickness or eye strain on my end. In fact, my eyes feel way more strained after looking at a computer monitor than after VR.

I don't really consider that to be "simulator sickness" fatigue - it's just exercise and fatigue in general due to the course of the simulation, not because of technical flaws in the implementation of the hardware.

Though I can understand where you're coming from; I recall really "playing" Dactyl Nightmare in the mall (most people would just stand around and stare in the game - it was kinda stupid), and I would walk away fairly sweaty from the "workout" of playing the game (crouching, moving, shooting, aiming, etc).

I always thought that was one of the best aspects of VR gaming - that I could actually be in the game, and not just viewing it through a window semi-passively.

Yep, that's it, I fully agree with you. I was trying to relay that the exhaustion i get from the VR is just inherent to the physical activities I perform while in VR, nothing to do with VR itself. You phrased it much better than I did, so thanks for clarifying to others reading :)

I wish there were more good VR experiences I could do from the couch. When I’m tired and want to relax, it turns out sitting and putting my feet up is a pretty important part of what I’m looking for.

Agreed. Even just for straight up standing experiences, a lot of them involve way too much movement for someone living in a cramped apt. Playing Superhot VR recently, my friend accidentally broke my drinking glasses on the counter :(

It would be nice to be able to just sit down and relax in VR while playing a game.

Have you tried Elite Dangerous? It's totally playable from the chair.

I wonder how that game would be to play it relaxing in a "zero-g" recliner/lounge chair?

Have you ever heard of the company Flogiston - and the Flogiston Flostation?

https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/tech...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1998/ch5.htm

You can find some more pictures and stuff with google - the company no longer exists, and I don't know if any of the prototypes or such are still around; if they are, they are probably "unobtainium".

But anyhow, part of the system was a particular style of "zero gravity" posture chair, as you can see from the pictures and such. So playing Elite Dangerous in an HMD from a similar chair might be an interesting experience...

For me, I personally feel enclosed and slightly seasick. I don't think it's a weight issue, but something to do with the inherencies of the system. I can stand a hololens longer than a Vive, for instance.

Interesting - are you prone to claustrophobia? It sounds like what you experienced is similar to that, from what little I know about the condition.

Do you have the same response when wearing other kinds of goggles or face shield (say something like welder's goggles, or lab goggles, or a scuba mask, or a welder's hood - things like that)?

I don't think I've ever heard of this being reported, but it doesn't surprise me as a possibility, either. It may even be mentioned in the literature out there (while I have an extensive collection of literature and research papers on VR, I'm certain I don't have anywhere near all of it).

Thank you for responding about it.

I have no problem going two hours of beat saber and/or boxvr, though my Quest’s battery does.

I think it's because current VR isn't overly impressive to adults, but is to children.

I did not see this on firefox’s reality page. Do you have a link to the offending image?

It's on the homepage:

https://mixedreality.mozilla.org/static/kid-03fadfdcdaaabce0...

Ugh, still not seeing it. If I go to mixedreality.mozilla.org, that image doesn’t appear at all. I even tried requesting the desktop website and it still isn’t showing.

i hope not. long term effects of a heavy constricting belt on a still-developing cranium must be severe.

It shouldn't be adjusted that tight though, that concern would also apply to a child wearing a maladjusted baseball cap as well.

So I would suspect it's a minor concern, I would worry more about mental/cognitive effects more.

People have been doing that intentionally since prehistoric times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

that ... doesnt look healthy

> heavy constricting belt on a still-developing cranium

How tight are you making the VR headset? Whatever tightness you're using might be a bit much if you consider it "heavy constricting".

Have you read Ready Player One?

Do you find science fiction to be a good predictor for the near future?

If you think sci-fi is not a good predictor for the near future, just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question. I agree with you, though, that RPO is not meant to be realistic in any way and a bad example, but the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful. Try The Martian from Andy Weir, or some of Daniel Suarez' books like Kill Decision. There is some scary realistic sci-fi out there.

I haven't read Kill Decision, but I have read The Martian, so I'll answer in that vein.

I don't think The Martian is realistic, or even a good predictor of anything. Now, there may be an expedition to Mars in future, but AFAICT there's really no good reasoning for it. What's your argument for an expedition to Mars?

EDIT: I just wanted to add: You and I -- humans that we are -- only remember the hits, i.e. the predictions that turned out to be true. There are a lot or predictions (sci fi novels, etc.) that turn out to not be true and are thus forgotten. QED

> What's your argument for an expedition to Mars?

You seem to have missed the point of my comment completely. Your takeaway from my saying "just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question" and "the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful" (for which the books were supporting examples) is to ask what makes me think humanity should go to Mars? The book doesn't even argue we should or shouldn't go to Mars, but it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually (contrary to your generalization) be a realistic representation.

As for survivorship bias, sure, I can think of a million sci-fi books that are unrealistic. I never made the argument all sci-fi is good or that their authors have done research or that they are good predictors. But that most don't even try to be predictive doesn't mean some might not be a realistic enough example to relate it to the choices we make and how it might play out. RPO just isn't one of them.

Ok, so this is a dense comment, so I'm going to try again.

AFAICT, your nested quotations contained a quote (by you!), which said "it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually [...]"

Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi?

Look, I'm not per se against imagination or exploration, but I am very much for realism.

> Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi?

Yes.

I honestly don't understand your point was.

Help me!

"They" don't want you to know how and why they are brainwashing your kid. When you take it off him/her to check, it will revert to some "safe" default show.

</Tinfoil>

</Sarcasm>