Readit Newsgoles commented on Canadian Devs Are Backing Out of Attending GDC wired.com/story/canadian-... · Posted by u/iancmceachern
goles commented on The NBA Apple Vision Pro app now has a 3D tabletop view uploadvr.com/nba-apple-vi... · Posted by u/matheussampaio
Improbable tried baseball.[1] They have some kind of deal with the Major League Baseball company. Improbable's metaverse is so expensive to operate that they can't run it 24/7, so they only rent servers for pay per view special events.
American football would make more sense as something to view in VR. The action is complicated to follow.
[1] https://www.improbable.io/news/improbable-builds-major-leagu...
The MLB VR app[1] is pretty neat. You can sit behind home plate with a virtual strike zone, track balls, launch trajectory, height, a bunch of stats as you watch the game play out in real time. Including live games.
A lot of the negative reviews are people confused it's not a game, it's to watch baseball games.
I can't say I'd watch a ton of games on it but I watched some playoff games on it.
Only complaint is that the players are just little cards running around the field. MLB has very good 3D tracking[2] of players on the field, if you could see a somewhat realistic model of players on the field that would be pretty amazing.
If they iterated on the concept I could see more people adopting it.
If you're a manager in a company that does sucky things, does (inevitably) being quoted saying a policy 'sucks' risk you losing your manager job there?
I'm an OG techie, who ends up doing some manager-y things, and I'm going to be very straightforward with everyone. But on something like sucky policy, I might not say "sucks".
Instead, maybe acknowledge they're concerned/upset, ask questions about how it affects, ask/discuss how that can be fixed/improved, and honestly say some of what I will try to do about it.
Example of last part: "Thank you, I'm going to escalate this, and I plan to get back to you within the next 2 days. If anything comes up before then, let me know."
The author is right, the correct stance is... > “Yeah, <s>this new policy sucks</s> I don't agree with 100% of all decisions, I get it. It’s going to affect me in negative ways too.”
Then critically thirdly,
> "Lets work together to demonstrate why the new policy is a risk to the customer."
Everybody drives on the same roads to the office, everybody has to wake up early, everyone has KPIs they are trying to hit.
To get what you want the compelling argument is to the customer.
Authors example, there aren't enough desks. We'll do it, but this is the level of support we can provide customers. This customers project is going to become at risk based on if we do this because of these reasons. We'll go in, but in order for us to deliver what we do at home we need to be accommodated to provide the same thing on time, I've done an estimate on what we'll need do you want me to expense it?
It's not about changes hurting you, the change hurting your team, it's how it's going to hurt the customer.