Chalmers in point 2 is not saying to imagine such a world, but that such a world is logically possible. Chalmers gives as an example of a logical impossibility a male vixen since it is contradictory. He states "... a flying telephone is conceptually coherent, if a little out of the ordinary, so a flying telephone is logically possible. Nevertheless, that zombies are logically possible, may be begging the question, that consciousness is non physical.
But it's not logically possible if consciousness is a material process, a consequence of computation in the human brain (and potentially other places). So you can't prove that consciousness is not materialistic by assuming it's not materialistic.
I'm still missing the point, I guess, as I don't think the question is logically possible.
One might as well say: it is logically possible to have a universe where the physics are identical to our present world, except the core of the Sun is chocolate... therefore fusion can't be the explanation for why our Sun radiates so much energy.
Getting back to the zombies, presuming there could be a zombie clone of me which is indistinguishable from the real me but it isn't conscious is one that needs far more support than just asserting it. I've heard people try to explain: well, imagine if a powerful computer was simulating you in every respect, that would be a p-zombie. But that is question begging, as it presumes that such a creature wouldn't be conscious.
I feel the same way about Searle's Chinese Room -- the power of the argument is there only if you have already decided that consciousness is mystical.
To illustrate what can be done with the BOSL2 library for openscad this can add 3 "diamonds" to the RIGHT, FWD, and TOP direction of a square, with the RIGHT and FWD diamond's corner touching the square on the side and the TOP diamond sitting atop the square:
In the case of sunlight exposure to UVB an equilibrium is reached where the amount vitamin D produced in the skin equals the amount destroyed by UVB. This does not happen if you pop vitamin D pills. I've recently written an app that calculates the time required to obtain adequate vitamin D by lying prone in the sun, with most of your clothes off, and using MED the minimal erythema dose as a guide to safe sun exposure. At the height of summer it is a surprisingly short amount of time that is required to get adequate vitamin D even for people with dark skins.
This was about 10 years ago but here in New Zealand I found someone who could repair and replace the rubber so my 30 year old infinities are as good as new.
Genuine curiousity, in what ways is it significantly better?
I'm a die hard i3 user and if there's a better tiling window manager I would switch. Can you hide all window chrome like titlebar, borders, etc to maximize pixels? How about managing window container groups? Can you cycle between different layouts, eg tabbed, split, stacked like in i3. Can you move windows to a specific desktop/monitor with keyboard? Is auto splitting and arrangement supported like bspwm or i3?
I've tried all tiling window managers and I settled on i3.
No it doesn't have nearly those features as far as I know.
However, it has an on and off button right in the top bar. And it has a couple click way to add a window as an exception. So you can have all your terminals, browsers, etc. tiled and perfect... but when a random little tool, dialog, etc. smashes in and ruins and everything it's easy to make it float above as an exception. And if that isn't working you just flip it off and deal with the annoying program, then flip it back on.
I like it a lot. I don't come from a background of i3 or power usage of tiling WMs (to be honest I really loved paper WM, another cool gnome tiling-like extension). But pop's tiling manager seems like the perfect balance of good for users that want tiling but don't want to go all in on it.
As another i3 user, Pop shell isn't as good as i3 IMO. In particular, I felt their stacking option was half-backed when I tried it, which was when it came out. The advantage is that it has much better support for stuff Gnome comes with out of the box, which you might have to configure for yourself in i3. At the end of the day, if you are happy with your i3 setup, I see no reason to switch to Pop Shell.
The light that is required to increase vitamin D production is UVB. The Penn State researchers used a pulsed UVB source for their research. Lower frequency light will not activate the conversion to vitamin D. Glass absorbs most UVB light therefore laying out mushrooms on a window sill will not work.
The problem here is that UVB levels, required for vitamin D synthesis, decrease dramatically before 9am and after 6pm, whereas UVA does not. The best option for vitamin D synthesis is short sun exposure around midday.
