shut it down boys, everything's already been made.

Just because the observable world is testable doesn't mean that subjectivity doesn't hold any value.

Yeah, and I never claimed that. There's plenty of value in the subjective. For example, I liked this movie more than that one. My tastes are subjective, and yet I find value in them.

But this philosopher's claim isn't subjective. It's not "hey I think it would be cool if all matter were conscious." It's a pseudo-factual claim about consciousness. It's not subjective at all. It's just neither wrong nor right. It would be like me claiming that there exists a being called "god" who has never and will never interact with this universe in any way. You can't predict anything based on this pseudo-factual claim, which means (IMO) it has no real truth value. On the other hand, it's definitely not a "subjective" viewpoint as most people conceive of subjectivity.

In these discussions, "subjective" and "objective" are jargon. "Subjective" basically means existing only from the point of view of an observer. "Objective" means existing independently of any observations or experiences.

For example, playing a video game, there is some kind of objective physical activity occurring in reality. Subjectively, you perceive a cartoon world with Mario bouncing around on koopas. If the CPU has its own subjective experience of the very same objective physical phenomena, it probably doesn't involve the perception of Mario and koopas.

I think there is probably tremendous value in figuring out what it is about the universe that enables these different subjective experiences, when and how they arise, how they're similar and different, etc.

>There's plenty of value in the subjective

But in turn I can say everything you know and experience about the world is subjective. It came through your senses and you have no way to know if it was the same with other people.

Seems like something you wouldn't want to maintain, especially on day 1. It's always something that can be built and transfer over to after the business has grown and developed.

Lying/deceiving about what?

Also: what does "we recorded many participants performing tasks involving deceptive walking" mean? Does this AI detect those who perform deceptive walking, or people who are actually deceptive walking?

They had participants carry a folder between two points, one contained papers and one contained money that they were told to conceal and hand off to a person wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. They compared the way the participant walked.

You missed the key part of the experiment: They basically completely changed the experimental setup between the two runs: The confederate changed how they were dressed, the item was on the floor instead of on the table, and, most importantly: they told the participant to hide what they were doing and otherwise act sketchy!

So yeah! No surprise! They told the participant to act sketchy, and they did! What did the participant do? They put their hands in their pocket and looked around a bunch more than normally. Why? Because they were basically told to! That's not "deceptive walking".

Where is the control for picking up the papers off the floor, or the money off the table? How do we know it's not just that people will walk differently when they are about to crouch down? Maybe that would be an interesting paper by itself, but instead the authors think that this type of research is capable of identifying "deception" with 93% accuracy? Absurd!

There is so much wrong with the experiment, that you could write a rebuttal of almost every decision they made.

You're not kidding. "In this procedure, the deceptive walk is induced by the experimenter during the briefing, the type of object, and the appearance of the confederate"

This is not deceptive walking, this is honest walking. They are honestly trying to broadcast the signal that they were told to broadcast.

They annotated video of people wearing hoods, putting hands in pockets, etc, and then trained the classifier to detect people wearing hoods, putting hands in pockets, etc..

The "deceptive" part is just a frosting layer of prejudice they laid on top.

Drugs I guess

Mine came out to only $40k

I'm also genuinely curious about what kind of application justifies such a beast.

It must be a very satisfying experience to use it. I remember first time that I used a 25'' screen, 100 KB/s Internet at work in the 90's. It was like magic.

Not sure what you mean...GraphQL is just the API endpoint. Using GQL or REST wouldn't make a difference on how suspense works.

You'd still query and display your data in the same way. Suspense will just be a wrapper around the component displaying the data.

Consider this code snippet using Apollo React Client:

    const Dogs = ({ onDogSelected }) => (
      <Query query={GET_DOGS}>
        {({ loading, error, data }) => {
          if (loading) return 'Loading...';
          if (error) return `Error! ${error.message}`;

          return (
            <select name="dog" onChange={onDogSelected}>
              {data.dogs.map(dog => (
                <option key={dog.id} value={dog.breed}>
                  {dog.breed}
                </option>
              ))}
            </select>
          );
        }}
      </Query>
    );

You could still wrap this in a suspense wrapper.

With GraphQL you could in theory grab all the data a page needs in one request. Suspense seems to only be useful if you are making multiple requests. Not sure what Apollo has to do with anything though.

Isn't still possible to wait for the data from that one request to be loaded? I'm also curious on how this will work with subscriptions.

Get ready for my start up LightningBolt. It has Quantum Computers available on Rigetti.

How can spending less and being mindful of what you own a thing only rich can do?

Sure, if you're throwing away useful items and replacing them constantly then you're wasting money. But if you're buying only what you need, discarding items that haven't been used in 18 months, and constantly being mindful of purchases/items you own, there is no way it's "only for the rich".

What an absurd sentiment.

It's simple: because the richer you are, the more you can replace storing items with just-in-time throwaway purchases or services. You can easily throw away stuff you haven't used in 6 or even 3 months, if you can afford buying them on the spot when needed. You don't need tools or appliances if you can afford paying for a service. Etc.

I haven’t used my plunger in 18 months. Should I throw it away?

I didn't buy a gimmicky As Seen On TV kitchen gadget I'd use once and store in the garage for the rest of my life, am I a rich person?

No. Every time you use a plunger, it sparks joy as soon as you see the water level drop and realize you don't need to call a plumber.

It's difficult to see this as good-faith engagement with Kondo's advice of asking whether a particular item is useful or "sparks joy".

From the person I responded to:

> But if you're buying only what you need, discarding items that haven't been used in 18 months, and constantly being mindful of purchases/items you own, there is no way it's "only for the rich".

By their logic, I should throw away my plunger since I haven't used it in the last year and a half. But obviously I need to keep my plunger around in case of emergencies.

If you're not wealthy, you need to keep possessions around in case of emergencies. You need a car because you can't afford to Uber around everywhere. Or a thick winter jacket in case it becomes extremely cold out (even if that only happens every few years). Or an air conditioner/header because you can't afford an apartment with central AC. Or an old laptop because you can't afford to go out a buy a new one should your current laptop break.

Another example: I have an office job that lets me use work printers for personal purposes. I could get by with not having a printer at home. If you're less wealthy, you're more likely to not have an office job. Even if you do have an office job, it's possible that they are stricter wrt. printer rules. Another example of the disparity between wealthy people and non-wealthy people wrt. minimalism.

Well a rich person and a poor person are both going to keep the plunger, so here we are again starting at 0. You're not really making any sort of point.

If you haven't used your printer in 18 months you're probably okay getting by with the one at the library.

No, but you shouldn't buy one for every bathroom.

So one extra space after the back-tick is now considered a lot of muscle memory?