How Fast is Online Video Growing?

The projections for the future composition of internet content heavily emphasize the growing dominance of video. Here are some key insights:

1. Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast: Cisco's report projected that by 2021, 80% of all internet traffic would be video, a significant increase from 67% in 2016. This was expected to be driven by nearly 1.9 billion internet video users, up from 1.4 billion in 2016, with 3 trillion minutes of internet video being watched per month by 2021.

2. Sandvine's 2023 Global Internet Phenomena Report: Sandvine reported a 24% growth in video usage in 2022, making it 65% of all internet traffic. This marked the first time Netflix overtook YouTube as the individual app generating the most traffic.

3. InterDigital/Futuresource Report: According to a joint report by InterDigital and Futuresource, video viewing was expected to account for 82% of all internet traffic by 2022. This represents a significant increase from earlier years, reflecting the continuous and rapid growth of video content online.

4. Global Video Streaming Market: The global video streaming market, valued at USD 89.03 billion in 2022, is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.5% from 2023 to 2030. This growth is being fueled by innovations such as blockchain technology and artificial intelligence, which are used to enhance video quality and user experience.

These projections underscore the increasing importance of video content on the internet, driven by consumer preferences and technological advancements. As video content continues to dominate, it shapes not only the way we consume content but also the infrastructure and technology needed to support this massive volume of data.

When Will the Internet Become Video Only?

The notion of the internet becoming "video only" is highly unlikely. The internet is an incredibly diverse platform that supports a wide range of content types, including text, images, audio, and video. Each type of content serves different purposes and meets various needs for both creators and users. Here are a few reasons why the internet will likely continue to support multiple forms of content:

1. Textual Content: Text is essential for many forms of communication and information dissemination. It's crucial for news articles, educational material, legal documents, and much more. Text is also more accessible for many users, especially in low-bandwidth situations or for people with certain disabilities.

2. Images and Graphics: Still images and graphics play a significant role in areas like photography, art, design, and visual communication. They are essential for contexts where visual representation is more effective than video.

3. Audio Content: Audio content, including music, podcasts, and audiobooks, is a preferred format for many users, especially for multitasking or for people with visual impairments.

4. Video Content: While video is indeed growing rapidly in popularity and usage, it is just one part of the diverse content ecosystem on the internet.

5. Technical and Practical Considerations: Different content types require different technologies for creation, distribution, and consumption. Video, for instance, requires more bandwidth and storage compared to text and images. This makes it impractical for the internet to become solely video-based, especially in regions with limited internet infrastructure.

6. User Preferences and Needs: People have varied preferences and needs when it comes to consuming content. For instance, some may prefer reading detailed articles over watching videos on the same topic.

In conclusion, while video content is becoming increasingly dominant and may continue to grow as a share of internet traffic, it's improbable that the internet will become exclusively video-oriented. The diverse nature of content types is a strength of the internet, catering to a wide range of uses and users.

So We're Not Headed for a VR 'Matrix'

The concept of a virtual reality (VR) environment like the one depicted in "The Matrix" – a fully immersive, alternate digital universe where physical reality is completely replaced by a virtual one – remains firmly in the realm of science fiction for several reasons:

1. Technological Limitations: While VR technology has made significant advances, it's still far from being able to create a fully immersive alternate reality that is indistinguishable from the real world. Current VR experiences are limited by technology such as screen resolution, motion tracking, and processing power.

2. Physical and Sensory Limitations: Current VR technology primarily engages sight and sound. Fully immersive VR would need to convincingly simulate all human senses, including touch, taste, and smell, which is a complex challenge that is yet to be overcome.

3. Health and Safety Concerns: Prolonged use of current VR technology can lead to physical discomfort, such as motion sickness, eye strain, and disorientation. Ensuring the safety and well-being of users in a completely virtual environment is a significant concern.

4. Social and Ethical Implications: A world where people spend most of their time in a VR environment raises numerous social and ethical questions. Issues like the impact on human relationships, mental health, and the distinction between reality and simulation are critical considerations.

5. Economic and Infrastructure Challenges: Creating and maintaining a VR environment as complex as the one in "The Matrix" would require immense resources, infrastructure, and energy. This is beyond our current technological and economic capabilities.

6. Human Preference for Physical Reality: Many people value and find meaning in physical, real-world experiences. There's a significant aspect of human culture, interaction, and experience that is deeply rooted in the physical world.

In summary, while VR technology is advancing and may become more pervasive in various aspects of life, such as entertainment, education, and certain types of work, the idea of living in a fully immersive, alternate digital reality like "The Matrix" is still a work of fiction and not a foreseeable future reality. The real-world applications of VR are likely to complement rather than replace our physical experiences.

Would it Need to Ape all Senses? After Acclimatization to VR you Wouldn't Miss Them

The idea that extended exposure to virtual reality (VR) might lead to a decreased need or desire for full sensory engagement is an interesting hypothesis, but it still faces several challenges and considerations:

1. Human Sensory Experience: Humans naturally perceive the world through multiple senses. Even in a VR environment, the lack of certain sensory inputs (like touch, smell, or taste) can make the experience feel incomplete or less immersive. Our senses work together to provide a comprehensive understanding of our environment and experiences.

2. Adaptation and Neuroplasticity: While the human brain is adaptable and can adjust to new environments (a concept known as neuroplasticity), this adaptation has limits. Completely replacing the rich, multi-sensory experience of the real world with a limited sensory experience in VR might not satisfy the brain's ingrained expectations and needs.

3. Psychological and Emotional Impact: The psychological and emotional impacts of long-term VR immersion without full sensory engagement are not well understood. Prolonged exposure to a sensory-limited environment could have unforeseen effects on mental health, perception, and cognitive function.

4. Physical Health and Well-being: Physical health and well-being are tied to sensory experiences. For example, the sense of touch is crucial for tasks requiring fine motor skills and spatial awareness. A lack of these experiences in a long-term VR environment could have implications for physical health and skills.

5. Social and Ethical Implications: The social and ethical implications of spending extended periods in VR, potentially at the expense of real-world interactions and experiences, raise significant concerns. Human relationships, societal engagement, and a connection to the physical world play essential roles in overall well-being.

6. Individual Differences: People's responses to VR environments can vary widely. Some may adapt more easily to a limited sensory environment, while others might find it disorienting or unsatisfying. The individual variability in response to VR is a crucial factor to consider.

In summary, while extended exposure to VR might lead to some level of adaptation, the complete replacement of the rich, multi-sensory experience of the real world with VR is a complex issue that encompasses psychological, physiological, social, and ethical dimensions. The necessity and desirability of engaging all senses in a VR environment stem from the fundamental ways humans interact with and understand their surroundings.

Would a VR Martrix Just Use Hypnosis Anyway?

The concept of a "Matrix"-style VR environment using hypnosis as a means of control or immersion is an intriguing idea but remains speculative and theoretical. Here are some considerations regarding this concept:

1. Hypnosis and VR: Hypnosis is a state of heightened focus and suggestibility, often used for therapeutic purposes. In contrast, VR is a technological medium that creates a simulated environment. While hypnosis can alter a person's perception and potentially make them more receptive to virtual experiences, it operates on a different principle than VR.

2. Limitations of Hypnosis: Hypnosis doesn't work uniformly on all individuals; its effectiveness varies greatly. Some people are more susceptible to hypnotic suggestions than others. Moreover, hypnosis cannot force someone to experience something completely outside the realm of their normal sensory experiences or against their will.

3. Ethical Considerations: Using hypnosis to control or enhance the VR experience raises significant ethical concerns. It would involve manipulating a person's mental state without their ongoing, conscious consent, which poses serious questions about autonomy and free will.

4. The Complexity of the Human Brain: The human brain is incredibly complex, and its full functioning is not yet completely understood. Replicating or influencing the entire range of human sensory and cognitive experiences through hypnosis alone, especially to the extent depicted in "The Matrix," would require a level of understanding and control over the brain that is currently beyond our capabilities.

5. Technology vs. Psychological Techniques: The technology in a "Matrix"-like scenario is typically imagined as advanced enough to directly stimulate the brain's sensory inputs, creating a fully immersive experience. This approach is fundamentally different from using psychological techniques like hypnosis, which are more about suggestion and perception rather than direct sensory input.

In summary, while hypnosis can alter perception and potentially enhance the immersive experience of VR, it is not a method that can fully replicate or replace the technological and sensory inputs of advanced VR. The use of hypnosis in this way would also bring about profound ethical and practical challenges. The idea of a "Matrix"-style VR using hypnosis remains firmly in the realm of science fiction and theoretical speculation.

I've seen people been made to do all sorts against their own will under hypnosis

The perception that hypnosis can force people to act against their will or experience things completely outside their normal sensory experiences is a common misconception, often fueled by portrayals in entertainment and stage hypnosis shows. However, the scientific understanding of hypnosis paints a different picture:

1. Voluntary Participation: In therapeutic or clinical hypnosis, the participant's consent and willingness to be hypnotized are crucial. Hypnosis requires a degree of cooperation from the individual, and it's generally not possible to hypnotize someone against their will.

2. Limits of Suggestibility: While hypnosis increases suggestibility, it doesn't eliminate a person's free will or moral judgment. People under hypnosis are unlikely to perform actions that are deeply against their morals, beliefs, or sense of safety. The actions you see in stage hypnosis shows are typically within the boundaries of what the participants are willing to perform, often influenced by the social and performative context.

3. Nature of Hypnotic Suggestions: Hypnosis works by suggesting ideas or concepts to a person in a highly focused state of mind. These suggestions can influence perceptions, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or behaviors, but they are generally constrained by the individual's belief system and physical capabilities.

4. Enhancing Existing Sensory Experiences: While hypnosis can alter or enhance perceptions, it typically does so within the realm of the individual's existing sensory experiences. For instance, it might make a person more sensitive to certain stimuli or help them imagine a sensation more vividly, but it doesn’t create entirely new sensory experiences out of context.

5. Stage Hypnosis vs. Therapeutic Hypnosis: Stage hypnosis for entertainment is quite different from therapeutic hypnosis used in clinical settings. Stage hypnotists often select participants who are more susceptible to suggestions and willing to perform. The environment and the expectation of the audience also play a significant role in how participants behave.

In summary, while hypnosis can significantly influence a person's perceptions and behaviors, its capabilities are not as extreme or supernatural as often portrayed in popular media. The idea that hypnosis can completely override an individual's will or create entirely new realities is not supported by scientific evidence. Hypnosis works within the bounds of the individual's existing mental frameworks and physical capabilities.

"MK Ultra" was a covert and illegal program of experiments on human subjects, conducted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1950s and 1960s. This program aimed to develop techniques and substances for use in interrogation and espionage, with a particular focus on mind control, chemical interrogation, and psychological manipulation. Here are some key aspects of MK Ultra:

1. Mind Control Research: One of the primary objectives of MK Ultra was to research and develop techniques for mind control. This involved attempts to alter an individual's mental state and brain functions to manipulate their behavior and thought processes.

2. Use of Psychedelic Drugs: The program is infamous for its experiments with psychedelic drugs, particularly LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide). The CIA was interested in understanding the effects of LSD on the human mind, particularly its potential use in interrogation and as a mind-control tool.

3. Behavioral Engineering: MK Ultra explored various methods of behavioral engineering. This included hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, and various forms of torture.

4. Psychological Manipulation Techniques: The experiments involved studying various psychological manipulation techniques to extract information, induce confessions, or create a state of psychological dependency or malleability.

5. Lack of Consent and Ethical Violations: Many of the subjects of these experiments were not informed about the nature of the experiments and did not give consent. This lack of consent and the unethical treatment of subjects are major criticisms of the program.

6. Discovery and Termination: The existence of MK Ultra was first brought to public attention in 1975 through investigations by the Church Committee of the U.S. Congress and a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Following these revelations, the program was officially halted, and the CIA faced significant backlash for its practices.

MK Ultra has since become a symbol of the darker aspects of government research and the lengths to which intelligence agencies might go in pursuit of national security objectives, often at the expense of ethical considerations and individual rights.