Now to be fair the statement is extremely vague on what exactly is being asserted based on this fallacy so my original characterization was informed by the wider context and it would have been fair for the person making the fallacious argument to elaborate a bit but clearly that wasn't convenient.

That's the central claim. Rest is just reiterating parts or attempts to justify it. The fallacy of claiming it follows that something cannot be valuable in itself because it isn't perfectly attainable is clearly there and isn't substantiated.

1. unless you’re making a conceptual art project or a shrine to a theoretical idea, decentralization is an impure means to an end and not a worthwhile pursuit in its own right

this is clearly saying: "Full decentralization is impossible, therefore decentralization isn't worthwhile in itself".

As a gesture of good faith I went back and reread it. Again, I'd appreciate specific points instead of vague claims. I'll just go over it in more detail here.

It's entirely possible I just already rejected whatever it is you think makes this interpretation not apply when reading it. Pretending it should be so obvious that it absolutely cannot be reiterated just shows insanely bad faith and should fool nobody.

Like it's entirely possible they think they have a better point than they actually do and I can easily come up with tons of possible flawed arguments they might think applies but if they're not even willing to lay out anything and try to make me guess it's just not a "discussion" worth having.

like I said they already expanded so much energy on everything except pointing out what that could be that it's pretty hard to believe that exists. If you think it does, could you at least point to what that might be?

Yes, that is very convenient for you. But keep hiding behind that.

I'm sorry you feel like you have to be this way. I obviously read it. If we entertain the idea that despite the appearance of bad faith you actually have a different point then you could just explain it.

It is interesting how social media makes people care more about the optics than the actual substance and trying to dunk on people any way they can becomes more important than having a good point.

Instead of writing all that after rejecting my interpretation you could also have told me what you meant but maybe you just like being obtuse. See it often when someone doesn't really have a solid argument so it's more convenient to hide behind this sort of thing.

"we can't have full decentralization so it doesn't matter how close to that ideal we get"

pretty much a textbook example of the fallacy known as the false dilemma...

they also previously pretty clearly welcomed and facilitated said fascists getting on the platform though...

Oh never mind about that last bit. I just saw that you actually are on the fediverse as @andyman404@mastodon.social, great!

Nice work, that display turning off at the exact right time sure was something in the first video. Wonder if there's examples of actually making real world objects respond to events in XR/AR in general?

BTW, would you mind following @ap.brid.gy so your account would be bridged to the fediverse too?

The Quest does not run a PC equivalent of VR chat standalone so this won't either. It's somewhat better but similar specs.

It innovates in being able to run x86/amd64 PC games (VR and non-VR) on ARM, a great PC to headset streaming experience and offering a full PC operating system experience in VR

they did cut some corners but maybe not quite as many as Quest 3. Quest 3 is single panel while this is dual. More powerful SoC. Not sure where they landed with the audio. It certainly is drastically cut down compared to Index but could still be better than Quest.

Exactly. He was ready to give up on the first vote so he really isn't the one anyone should ask.