Something like "The Meta Company" seems like the most likely bet here. Zuckerberg already owns meta.org through the Chan Zuckerberg Institute, and meta.com was updated yesterday to redirect to that same site.
https://who.is/whois/meta.com - updated yesterday
Definitely has potential. Whatever it is, I'm very certain it will be a short, common dictionary word, that will poison its general meaning forever, like how Tesla is not Nikola anymore.
Oh God, please let it be "VI" or "Tab".
Emacs and Spaces FTW!
I seriously doubt it will poison the word. When you hear the word alphabet, do you think of Google? These companies are too deeply ingrained in the public consciousness to meaningfully change their name. It's a legal thing, nothing more.
Thankfully, context clues let us sort these things out in the vast majority of cases, but there is some small cognitive load there. I do think alphabet being called that poisons the word, in that it creates opportunity for ambiguity. It's another wrinkle in an already messy language that's mutating and forking on multiple fronts. No cap, I'm finna stop alphabet-wannabes yoinkin muh words, it's annoying.
hijacking the cultural cache of the phrase "that's so meta" - deviously clever and annoying
The interesting thing with that is âfacebookâ comes across as simple and human-like, despite there being a lot of complexity behind it.
Meta is the opposite of this. It sounds robotic, abstract and lacks an emotive trigger. While this is more fitting for the company, it drops the perception-curtain that âfacebookâ hides behind.
Seems a lot like the creation of Alphabet. Nothing says faceless conglomerate like deliberately naming your company Alphabet.
My reaction to Alphabet was, "If you wanted to look like supervillains who planned to own everything in the world from A to Z... that would be how you'd do it. Was that intentional? I don't understand what else they might have intended."
The name is a double entendre. It also refers to making an "alpha" bet.
You know I had the domain metafirm.co and someone purchased it from me on the Sedo marketplace after a year of being on the market on Monday. Wondering if you are right.
I had a meta****.com domain for sale on sedo for couple years, it was sold last week.
Meta domains have been blowing up. meta.so just sold for $149,000
Imagine the "metastasis" comments, though.
We are a brand new company now, and want to help the people affected by our former ultra-addictive products so we are proud of introducing you our new and improved social net for women: Meta-donna
The metaverse stuff is really, really embarrassing. Second Life has existed for 20 years and it's a fun novelty. Adding advertising and branded content and making it cost more because of high end hardware requirements and making it slower and more difficult to interface with because it's VR/AR instead of using existing interfaces is not an improvement; just like adding branded content and sticking it in the skeletal husk of a bad shooter game for 12 year olds wasn't an improvement when Epic did it. All the CEOs who buy into this metaverse shit keep talking about the universe of possibilities, but the only possibility they're pursuing is building a Times Square Wal-Mart.
Even crazier, most of them approvingly point to the execrable "Ready Player One" as an example of a vision to deliver on. No, I'm sorry, a horny 15 year old shaving his body hair so he can be more aerodynamic in VR while engaging in extended self-congratulatory monologues about what a Nice Guy he is for not being repulsed by his "Rubenesque" girlfriend while he recites lines from Ghostbusters in a series of completely incoherent "memba this???" vignettes, is not a vision for the future.
It's a bummer because I think there probably are legitimate uses of VR/AR telepresence as the next frontier of video calling, which would seem to be right in line with Facebook's stated mission of connecting the world.
But no, we'll get an exceedingly shitty videogame instead. Can't wait for them to power it all by NFTs.
> just like adding branded content and sticking it in the skeletal husk of a bad shooter game for 12 year olds wasn't an improvement when Epic did it.
The reductive âFortnite is for kidsâ dismissal reminds me of the angry reaction by a particular cohort to the first cel-shaded Zelda game on the Gamecube. They dreamed of ârealisticâ graphics targeted toward serious gamers and even claimed they were betrayed by WIP footage that teased their dream.
Fortnite is a game with an incredibly high skill ceiling around its building mechanic. I watched Jonathan âFatal1tyâ Wendell (who is currently a 40-year-old and one of the earliest professional gamers) struggle in deep concentration on trying to incrementally improve his building speed and technique. I know many adults who play and enjoy the game, and they seem to enjoy the branded tie-ins. They are mature enough for their ego to be unaffected by the gameâs cartoon art style, chosen instead of a gritty Call of Duty realism. It has solid mechanics and the content has been highly polished, even when not tied in to branded content.
Even so, Iâm still not clear how that connects to Ready Player One being a dull and cynical exploitation of nostalgia shoutouts/callbacks.
If you have 20 minutes, this video[1] presents a good critique without mentioning aesthetics. It's especially notable how central the shop is to the whole experience.
I personally found Fortnite to be a huge slog to play - with tons of downtime compared even to games like CS: GO, let alone old-school arena shooters like Q3. The only thing that kept me coming back is the season pass reward tracks and daily missions.
> I personally found Fortnite to be a huge slog to play
I think that applies to the entire battle royale genre. Unless you're good, it's 20+ minutes of downtime (between waiting for the map to set, load, and for you to complete your jump and start finding opponents) for at minimum a few seconds of gameplay with an opponent.
It really pains me how so few people play arena shooters any more. They are brilliant, and you can get into (and stay in!) the thick of the action for the entire time you are logged on, save for the match ending and a new map loading.
If you want action, drop into an area dense with players (city areas are good, as they have lots of loot). Then, you're either very good and somewhat lucky, or you'll die straight off.
Engaging with others early is recommended for top-tier Fortnite players for building your combat skills.
> with tons of downtime compared even to games like CS: GO, let alone old-school arena shooters like Q3
To me, they are completely different games. I love the slowness in BR and tension that builds up between the action.
Everything you are saying about the skill ceiling in Fortnite, I completely agree from watching as well as playing the game over the years.
Another point is that Creative mode in Fortnite is thought to soon allow full Unreal Engine Blueprints and open modding.
The "mode selection" screen recently was turned into Netflix or Hulu like "tiles" with the majority of the tiles being Creative maps made by the community.
Fortnite is making a pretty strong "metaverse" play with Creative and the recently released by Epic Games "Imposters" mode shows that you will soon be able to play nearly any game "in Fortnite".
Yeah, and it's actually a pretty terrible attitude to have if you're into gaming because a large segment of the population thinks all video games are for 12 year olds.
> Fortnite is a game with an incredibly high skill ceiling around its building mechanic. I watched Jonathan âFatal1tyâ Wendell (who is currently a 40-year-old and one of the earliest professional gamers) struggle in deep concentration on trying to incrementally improve his building speed and technique.
When I think of the slogan "Fortnite is for kids" it rings true precisely for this reason. In my "old age" I simply can't keep up with the input rate/reaction time of high-level players.
I think what's even worse about Ready Player One is that everyone seems so bogged down in the minutia of the book of a poorly written 15 year old being in infatuated with a young woman without an eating disorder, they miss the whole distopian aspect of a world run by monopolistic corporations and corrupt governments powerless to stop them.
I think itâs because the monopolistic corporation meme has been done to death, so the focus is instead on the mindless âfunâ adventure aspect.
Doesn't matter. Monopolistic corporations are one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (alongside the climate, income inequality, and social justice) so we must be constantly reminded of them.
The problem here is the unyielding reality that power corrupts. This is true if this power comes in the form of Government, or Corporations.
Society today has self feeding feedback loop that is going to continue to grow where in government regulations are used to phase out small companies in favor of larger companies, as those companies become corrupt or at best at odds with the population, the population demands they be more heavily regulated which then leads to more power and more corruption in both government and corporations.
The only real solution to this is less powerful more distributed government, but people largely fail recognize this reality instead focusing on "electing the right" people or party.
Power Corrupts, the only way to end corruption is to deny it power.
Government is less powerful nowadays than it has ever been since WW2. I don't think this helped in anything to reduce power of corporations, quite the contrary. Moreover, it is not government that control corporations/rich people, it is the opposite. The fight should be against the source of power, not against their powerless representatives.
I was more "bogged down" by the alluring dog whistle of GenX early stage hacker cultural references: 2112, Tomb of Horrors, Atari, Joust, etc.
Of course they left most of that out of the pathetic film...
if by everyone you mean the author then I agree
There's also an inherent contradiction to it all. If you create a world where users can create their own content and have a lot of freedom - they will create lots of digital penises (see the aforementioned Second Life). But if you want an environment where "brands" are comfortable to "engage" with users you need to keep the space as penis-free as possible.
Given Facebook's history of prudishness I suspect their metaverse will be closer to "Fortnite -shooting +ads" rather than Ready Player One.
> But if you want an environment where "brands" are comfortable to "engage" with users you need to keep the space as penis-free as possible.
As always, advertising is the root of all the evils we face today in our technological society. When is this industry gonna be regulated out of existence?
Oh, I think you can still chase a few pointers up the Tree of Evil from advertising
I would kind of prefer a space where I can "engage" with companies/people I'm interested in instead of a space full of peni.
Without being reductive, though: there's obviously a middle-ground here. For example, property/space is "owned" by entities in Second Life and those owners can kick/ban others who aren't behaving from their space. It seems entirely possible for a large, 3D space to have areas where brands (or other entities) can ensure they have a penis-free space without dictating what the rest of the "world" is like.
That was not always the case.
Sticking with the Epic example, a great deal of custom maps made it into regular rotations in the original Unreal Tournament community, and a great many mods were played for a very long time.
But people weren't doing it for money, or "brands" as you say. They were building stuff for their own enjoyment.
A community polices itself, ultimately. If "brands" try to police it, then yes you will get penises and Hitler, because "brands" have assumed liability for said policing and the community itself is rightfully reluctant to help them do their jobs. Penises and Hitler are more often than not a subconscious lashing-out at the "brands."
Do you mean penis-free as in beer, or penis-free as in speech?
> penis-free as in beer
Oh do I hope it is.
This is the best comment I have ever read on this entire website.
they will create lots of digital penises (see the aforementioned Second Life)
Actually, they rarely do in Second Life. As I mentioned in a previous posting, in a big 3D world, being a jerk doesn't scale. You can only make trouble locally. Second Life is about the size of Greater London.
Most virtual land is leased to individuals, and the leaseholder can eject or ban annoying visitors. There's also peer pressure. People can and will tell jerks they are being a jerk. This works better in 3D than it does in text forums.
There are a few public places in Second Life that are jerk magnets. These are the "social islands", where new users enter the system after completing the tutorial. They're the bus terminals of Second Life. They're intended as transit points. Most users take one of the portals and leave for a new destination. Some new users, confused about what to do, stay there. Some losers go there to harass new users. They're the same kinds of losers found in real-life bus terminals.
People who write articles about Second Life sometimes don't get past the entry area, and they think that's typical of the whole virtual world. It's more like visiting only the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NYC and then publishing an article about your trip to New York.
> Most virtual land is leased to individuals, and the leaseholder can eject or ban annoying visitors.
> Second Life is about the size of Greater London.
Both these statements are directly contradicted by https://secondlife.com/land/ which says land is bought from LindenLabs and that SL is not fixed in size but they continuously add more "land" with new users, so anyone can buy land themselves. Premium users get 1000 square meters free.
The metaverse stuff is really, really embarrassing. Second Life has existed for 20 years and it's a fun novelty.
As a Second Life user and creator, and client developer, I agree. I think Second Life could be bigger if the technology was improved, and can see ways to do that. But the concept will not scale to Facebook levels. Besides, we have no way to do full dive technology in a home environment. (Location-based, maybe. The Star Wars Experience and omnidirectional treadmills indicate it's not impossible with enough space and machinery.)
What will scale, and I suspect this is Facebook's vision, is AR goggles. Facebook, in your face, all the time. The dystopian vision of this is the "Hyperreality" video.[1] That's all too achievable, and very much in line with Facebook's business model.
Every time you mention this video, I will thank you for posting it!
It is a brilliant distillation of the commercialization of AR, and a "must watch" for all fanboys of the m-word.
Many of us saw the potential of the Internet, the WWW, and have lived long enough to see its trajectory from pure promise and world-changing potential, into mostly commercial milking medium.
I see no reason to assume that Zuck's vision will be any different.
I wrote a blog post recently that touched on this very disappointment with the potential that was the Internet and how I hope that the metaverse is a new opportunity for that early creativity to be unleashed. However, in my mind that will require either decentralization or a different gatekeeper than Facebook.
That's what worries me. We can't do Ready Player One level immersion yet, but the Hyperreality level of AR is very close. About two more generations of Ray-Ban displays. And it's so Facebook.
Business opportunity: "METADWEEB.COM" is unregistered.
Imagine if instead of or in addition to changing the name of the corporation, its head changed his whole ethos.
Imagine if he learned the value and intrinsic satisfaction of facilitating happiness, respect, and connection to humanity, and made these the central tenets of the platform.
Imagine if profitability fell a little, but not enough to stop the new ethos.
They can hire 20k engineers to build a doomed-to-fail metaverse that most of the world neither wants nor understands, but they can't dedicate the same headcount to making their platform healthier.
Incredible.
They have no duty whatsoever to make their platform healthier, and honestly it's getting repetitive, hearing people bemoan a completely-optional-to-your-life social media company for being too good at getting people to talk to one another.
And no, there is no possible argument you could make that says you must use Facebook because of anything Facebook has done except be extremely valuable and easy to use for its users.
Nobody has to use WhatsApp, nobody has to use Instagram, they choose to because other people decided to use them. It's not Facebook's fault entire governments decided to run out of WhatsApp, and those governments/your friends could switch to/add on a different platform if they wanted to, they just don't because what Facebook offers for free (the network) is a lot better than what other technology offers.
The analogy that comes to my mind is as if all of my friends and family and customers and employers did heroin. Yes, I could choose not to do heroin, and yet, staying around those people, the likelihood of me continuing to use heroin is high (pun intended) so I could continue to fit in. One of the best ways to stop using heroin is to disconnect from those friends and family.
So yes, they may be completely-optional-to-my-life in terms of using it directly, and yet choosing to not use them often means disconnecting from people not just on those platforms but in life in general.
An example that's almost the opposite: I traveled a lot overseas and my close group of American friends would use an SMS chat group to stay in touch. While overseas, I'd use a local sim and couldn't receive the group texts. I wanted them to switch to Whatsapp or a similar platform that would work over the internet. A few of them refused. So they stayed on the platform and I felt myself becoming more distant from them, not just in texts but in general. I felt a very similar disconnect after I deleted my FB account a few years back, and then again, after I built a new FB account and muted all of my FB friends.
At some point, I think a company becomes so large and integrated into society that it becomes a pseudo-monopoly and often in the US we treat those as public utilities. Yes, I think I could live without electricity in my city, and yet the electric company would still impact my life.
> They have no duty whatsoever to make their platform healthier,
You could say the same thing about any addictive substance. And yet I doubt people would argue that controlling substance abuse is a bad thing.
For better or worse Facebook has made a thing that through the sum of its parts is harmful to society. I doubt any specific line-level engineer or product planner ever intentionally decided to end up with this end product, but here we are.
> hearing people bemoan a completely-optional-to-your-life social media company for being too good at getting people to talk to one another.
The issue isn't that it's getting people to talk with one another, it's that it encourages negative engagement.
The same thing happens with news - people are enraptured with gossip and death and will watch that more than something less salacious. But FB has scale and targeting unmatched by any other service. Google probably had a "and there but for the grace of god go we" moment - their search results probably has/had similar problems but hasn't incurred as much outrage. If Google Plus actually succeeded maybe they'd be the ones in the hot seat today.
> They have no duty whatsoever to make their platform healthier...
Of course they do. They may have no legal duty to behave morally, but they, like everyone else, still have a moral duty to behave morally.
> for being too good at getting people to talk to one another.
Not sure if youâve been on FB in recent years, but people arenât really talking to each other so much as they are spewing into a void. By far, the most common p2p interaction is arguing between strangers. Facebook is actually terrible at its initial premise of connecting people who know each other IRL, or those who might want to.
Its unhealthiness directly correlates to its profitability, so nothing to do with capability.
> but they can't dedicate the same headcount to making their platform healthier
A FB recruiter contacted me a few years ago to ask me about leading a "new anti-abuse team." At the time, I merely had a bad taste in my mouth for the company, but I figured if they were trying to combat abuse, it was worthy of having a conversation.
TLDR, the interview was a standard normal ML loop with no talk about abuse reduction. When I brought it up, they just talked up my experience and wanted to focus on that. Nice bait-and-switch. One interviewer raved about how awesome it was that he got to do ML at work (??), and it was all in video recommendations to keep eyeballs on the site.
That was a big (but not the biggest) turning point for me in my perspective of the company. I'm convinced they don't intrinsically care to fix the problems of abuse, and we need regulation to make them extrinsically motivated.
I say, you're a dreamer.
Theyâre not the only one.
They hope one day you will join them... and dont forget to press the like button, subscribe to the channel and hit the bell to get all the notifications
That is a level of existential flexibility not yet known to mankind.
I'd be watching for pigs on the wing.
On that topic by M.G. Siegler on 10/6:
"Facebook is not dying as a business, but theyâve died as a brand. The company needs to move on to âwhatâs nextâ as quickly as possible to distance themselves from the social network. This is nothing new, of course â I wrote this over six years ago. Theyâve more or less been trying to do this for years. But even in creating an umbrella company, they called it âFacebookâ, which was dumb. It was the exact opposite of what they should have done. Because, again, Facebook, the brand, is over."
Fully agree about Fb the brand being dead. That's a stink that's not coming off. I think the business has good prospects. They're just learning how to monitize Ig and haven't begun to wring cash out of Whatsapp.
Does anyone really think though that Fb the company has what it takes to produce another world beating product? Call me pessimistic, but their best shot is buying up innovative companies and not strangling the cool out of them (ie Oculus)
Oculus at least was a strategic acquisition for whatever this metaverse product is going to end up being. If job listings are any indication, they are sinking a ton of money into VR research and devices. Something big is in the works. Given their stated goal of pivoting to the metaverse, I think their long-term goal is to make a ready-player-one style full virtual world, and Oculus and related products and technologies are gonna be a big part of that
As far as the ordinary user is concerned, there is no stink at all. People are not as aware of FBs negative impact or scandals to the degree that the average HN user is.
It's gone mainstream. Even the most ordinary user watches cable news. My close relations are as out of touch as it gets, and even they hold their noses when they use Fb now.
> Does anyone really think though that Fb the company has what it takes to produce another world beating product?
Is what they are trying with the Metaverse stuff. Kinda weird considering that buying "the next big thing" has worked so well for them before.
The libra fiasco should make anyone wonder if Fb is going to be able to sell the public on a big new project. At this point it feels like users tolerate Fb purely due to the network effects they have.
They don't have to, they just have to buy it
Edit: yeah, what you said.
This is a pretty worthless take from the HN community that Facebook==Bad. I've been watching the investments in VR, and I think it's a pretty bold move and only one that a founder-led company could even do. Fact is that Facebook has been largely responsible for VR up to this point and has sold the vast majority of all the HMDs out there. The VR/AR tech is brimming with possibilities and even a few days spent playing with the Quest 2 makes that obvious for anyone paying attention. They'll soon have 20k employees working on VR/AR. They are releasing a new HMD in a week that's rumored to bring face and eye, and potentially body tracking. They are announcing a company rebrand at the VR conference. Zuck has every indication of being all in on a pivot, from stale and dangerous social media that may soon be regulated out of existence, to fresh new pastures.
Tech companies already sit in the middle of so much of our relationships with each other and each one of them delivers a terrible low-bandwidth experience. I believe Facebook's end game here is no less than digital teleportation. Put on a pair of sunglasses and you can be in the room with anyone in the world. It will be radically personal and intimate after decades of impersonal, disconnected, inhumane and isolating tech.
And anyway, regardless of outcome, it will surely be more entertaining to watch a trillion dollar company go fully down the rabbit hole of some kind of cyberpunk fantasy than to watch them continue to dig the hole deeper on their society destroying social media tech.
> Put on a pair of sunglasses and you can be in the room with anyone in the world. It will be radically personal and intimate after decades of impersonal, disconnected, inhumane and isolating tech.
And how will that makes them money? The only thing that's going to be more "personal and intimate" is the way in which they deliver ads and the same divisive and polarizing content. It'll be be way worse that it is now. Imagine how bad things got simply by inserting text and pictures into your social media feed. What happens when you're fully immersed in the "metaverse" with ads and divisive content literally be all around you. And no two people get the same content either. It's horrifying.
Fully recording and controlling an immersive environment sounds like the ultimate money making proposition to me.
I've spent time playing Poker Stars, Table Tennis, Rec Room and Alt Space interacting with adults. The interactions I've had are nothing like posting void-screaming updates to your feed and are everything like being there with a real person. People are kinder too, this is after all a real person in front of you and it is just as intensely embarrassing to make a fool out of yourself as it would be in real life. I recently had a nice conversation with a man about his partner's cancer diagnosis and was able to offer him real human empathy in a moment where the headset and avatars fell away. It reminds me of the intimacy that old POTS telephone lines had, like whispering into each other's ears. The potential is all there and the execution lies in the decade ahead. We will see, but I am paying attention.
We donât have to imagine what itâs like to be surrounded by ads, because thatâs literally the physical world. Billboards, posters, and screens creating awareness for new brands and content are everywhere we look. Itâs been that way for decades, and the world hasnât ended yet. Itâs not that big of a deal.
I don't think what you're talking about, where I live, life is not at all like you described. Billboards aren't allowed except on reserves here in Canada. Unless you're in a commercial setting, you don't see posters or screens everywhere.
It would be great if Facebook announced an open platform that focuses on enjoyable experiences rather than a closed platform that misappropriates PII and pushes negative interactions in a misguided quest for engagement. I won't hold my breath though.
The value in VR is easy to see. Most kids I've seen that get to try out VR come out of it like a meth addict that wants to dive back in for the next high. It's insane.
I think VR has a huge natural appeal and Facebook will just buy everything so they can own an entire growth industry. They'll keep the HMDs locked down and will destroy all competition with anti-competitive practices while regulators continue to look the other way. The entire VR industry will end up reaching a fraction of it's potential, but it'll still be profitable for Facebook so everyone will consider it a success.
I'd pay to see MarkVR where once a month the community gets to vote to put Zuckerberg into a VR community on the Facebook platform and he live streams the experience for 1h. I think that's one way you can tell the difference between a visionary/enthusiast and someone that's just buying things they think will make money. One loves the idea of participating in the community they're building and wants to build a healthy community with enjoyable experiences. The other would do everything in their power to avoid it because making money is the only goal and it doesn't matter if the community and experiences are terrible. Which one do you think Zuckerberg is?
> regulated out of existence
Regulation would further entrench Facebook as the only social network able to implement everything legally required to be a social network. Facebook wants legislation the same way Amazon and Walmart want increases in minimum wages: so they can push out smaller competitors and upstarts easier.
> And anyway, regardless of outcome, it will surely be more entertaining to watch a trillion dollar company go fully down the rabbit hole of some kind of cyberpunk fantasy than to watch them continue to dig the hole deeper on their society destroying social media tech.
I think the problem is that they seem to be headed towards doing both.
Yes, they will do both as long as there is money in social media. There will be gobs of money there, up until the point it's made illegal or defanged. I think the probability of that happening continues to increase, either the democracies will save themselves or the future autocracies will do it for them.
"Nick Clegg, Facebookâs vice-president of global affairs, has said he now takes his Monday morning meetings in the metaverse with a virtual table and whiteboard."
I once had a short consulting engagement with a VR company that spun out of Second Life and had to be "in world" the entire time. They had made a VR office space for the dev team to congregate in. The first time I beamed into a meeting room and saw a dozen blank faced avatars staring back at me I got filled with anxiety. I've been working remote for 13 years and I can't remember another time I felt anxious like that running a remote meeting.
The people were great and the spatial audio was interesting, but I found it really distracting to have to be in a VR world when really I just wanted to be in emacs coding. I felt mentally drained by the end of every day, worse than being in an office working a full day. I felt "always on" in a way I don't in an office (and certainly don't when remote). Maybe there's a niche here, but it's really not for me.
If they're already rolling Nick Clegg out to defend their metaverse ambitions then they can't think they're going to be very good for humanity.
Ugh Nick Clegg. No doubt a future seat as Harvard/Stanford Dean, if not just UK PM. The man talks out both ends - impressively so, I might add.
The UK already knows he talks out of both ends. His name is toxic here, Facebook oviously don't care much about converting more people in the UK to the cause with him involved.
Youâre presuming the technology and software is fixed. It isnât - there are continual leaps forward and it isnât going to stop anytime soon.
Facebook is rebranding because they can no longer control the narrative around their toxic brand. They have tried with "Project Amplify": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/technology/zuckerberg-fac...
Some branding consultant has calculated that it will be cheaper for them simply re-brand than to try to recover the existing brand.
>The Verge reported that the new name for the holding company could be linked to Horizon, a word used in at least two virtual reality products that the company is developing.
Did we just accidentally cross over into Shadowrun lore? Everyone's talking about the whole corporate dystopia thing but I didn't think we'd be this literal about it, they could just take the slogan as well while they're at it
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.