Thought I would put a little work into your question; I checked a random musician from this list and looked for recent news. They’ve literally been doing charity shows to get support for gaza.

It seems like some groups of people in israel feel there is an emergency that cannot be ignored; and some who do not.

nitpick: they were banned not from a country, but from a music hall; no?

kinda one time at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution

(If I understand you correctly. I rather hope there are other examples, it would be a weird thing for America to lead the world in.)

I personally don’t understand the logic of this symbolic act of protest, but I often don’t understand how protest is supposed to function. It did pull more attention towards gaza, and attention is everything.

Would a better protest be to keep the invite, but plaster the space with material about the genocide? Let the person quit if this offends them (which would probably be a more sympathetic headline and just as newsworthy) and make a story out of the performance if they don’t (which should be very photogenic).

If your point is just that people on the Internet aren’t very literate, your point is not interesting. Too much misinfo from ‘hyperbole’, save it for the discord imo. We have AI to automate vibe numbers now.

Your numbers must be wrong. The average cost of an MRI scan is under 1000 dollars in the States, uninsured. Link

This is for a 4 hour procedure, so the values given for labor are also criminally low. I know machine techs who are well paid and work on less than 35000 machines a year.

I thought it was cost of electricity and maintenance of the machines? How much money is compliance for these things?

Just because basic research doesn’t resolve a question perfectly does not imply that it ‘missed’ the point. I think this is a serious mistake in a lot of people’s understanding of science, and it’s worth sitting on.

Most things we learn are incremental.

This is normal. An experiment is not bad just because it is incremental. We should be looking at every opportunity to chip away at seemingly impossible questions.

And I think the study here is unusually high in information gained and context relevance. This experiment could have given extremely strong evidence that we do see colors differently than each other, because if we have different neurological reactions it would be pretty weird for our qualia to agree (most physicalist descriptions would have consider it proved that we see different colors). If, when we both see blue, our brains light up in very different ways, that would be weird!

So this is a point in favor of shared qualia. It doesn’t resolve the question; that will require several new ideas, breakthroughs in consciousness, and a lot of back-and-forth with philosophy. But it damages any theory that qualia are different because of brains being different, and that’s cool.

It is possible that you’ve defined qualia as explicitly non-physical (and so must posit a bunch of extra stuff for this study to stay irrelevant). This is done in some circles, but is not standard afaict. It comes in as definition (4) here, after several that are consistent with the study and OP’s use.

pun is great, but the point of the article is that the first bit seems to be wrong. You can use brain firing patterns in one person to predict which color another person is seeing afaict. In other words, we’re using the same nerve circuitry in extremely similar ways.

So happy to see something in this direction! Commentary is also excellent, looking forward to reading a review of many instances of this study.

I wouldn’t want to apply that to my favorite policy interventions.

You’re probably right that ranked choice voting won’t unlock utopia, and your favorite flavor of communism probably leads to the worst endless meeting. But we don’t have to like it.