Also, the mice got something like 500mg of psilocybin per kg of body mass. For humans, 280 mg/kg is considered a lethal dose (LD50). It's really unclear how this research could transfer to humans.

OTOH, it's a starting point. Rather than concluding that this means humans should trip on massive doses of shrooms to live longer, we should think that further research may elucidate the specific mechanisms and yield other insights that can transfer -- and might even be vastly more effective.

I agree on the matter of authority... but if you read the link, it largely suports what garyisabusyguy said. The link says:

the most commonly used mushroom is Psilocybe cubensis, which contains 10–12 mg of psilocybin per gram of dried mushrooms

Which is exactly what garyisabusyguy said.

It also says:

For example, if you want to consume 15 mg psilocybin (a common dose) from cubensis with 1% psilocybin content: 15 mg / 1% = 15/0.01 = 1500 mg = 1.5 g

But it also says that "strong" and "heavy" doses are 2.5-5g (25-60 mg psilocybin) and 5+g (50-60+ mg psilocybin). There's also a bit of inconsistency on the site, because if you look at the page devoted to Psilycybe cubensis, it gives different, slighly larger numbers. It says a common dose is 1-3g, a strong dose is 3-6g and a heavy dose is 6+g.

That all accords pretty will with what garyisabusyguy said, assuming his experience is with people who take doses at the high end of common and greater.

Of course, his ranges still suggest a maximum dose of ~84mg. A typical lab mouse weighs about 30 g = 0.03 kg, so they're taking a dose of 15 mg / .03 kg = 500 mg of psilocybin per kg of body weight. If an 80 kg human takes an 84mg dose, that's 1.05 mg of psilocybin per kg of body weight. So the mice are getting 475 times what appears to be a quite heavy dose for humans.

Further, the LD50 (dosage that is lethal 50% of the time) of psilocybin is 280 mg/kg of body weight. So the mice in the experiment got nearly twice what is usually considered a lethal dose in humans. It's unclear to me how or whether this can apply to humans.

Right to repair is unrelated.

That movement is mainly about requiring manufacturers supply to consumers and independent repairers the same repair parts, access to information, and tools such as diagnostic programs used by their authorized manufacturer repairers.

Right to repair does not have anything to do with making a device continue to run after termination by the manufacturer of availability of cloud services or an app they designed the device to depend upon.

Right to repair has also been co-opted by the large manufacturers and their lobbyists by getting major concessions written into the right to repair laws that essentially make them useless. For example Apple won't have to supply their individual specialized chips on a module, and they can make it available only as an entire assembly for order which will cost more than the phone.

They can still avoid supplying necessary tools to calibrate a new lid angle sensor for "security reasons".

Essentially: Right to repair was a great idea, but it has essentially failed because it has been co-opted and rendered ineffective, and it did not apply to this particular issue in the first place. For these reasons you need a new movement on this issue that you could think of as proximate to Right to repair, but it's still out of the scope of what Right to repair proposals have sought to accomplish.

I have owned 3 HMD phones now (2 branded NOKIA and my current one that's just branded HMD) and they were/are great. (one of the NOKIAs died because it got slightly wet in a massive storm and the charging port died, the other one died because it landed on a piece of raised paving for blind people and the screen got smashed)

My current HMD is good, its getting updates, it runs all the apps I need it to, it works with my carrier no problems (including VoLTE emergency calls) and I can get a full day of battery life (mobile data etc) out of it no problems.

I am in Australia though (and all 3 were sold as prepaid phones for the network my carrier runs on) so experiences elsewhere may differ...

So, I get what you're going for, but I would submit that there were more than a few missing steps here.

While the Nokia 3310 and similar models were the 'first phones' for many people, between about 2003 and 2007 there was a whole lot of 'feature phones', and they all had 'fun' names, like the "LG Chocolate" or the "Samsung Juke". They were frequently defined by a keyboard that allowed for full-blown texting beyond the T9-based input you're describing. Early iterations of smartphones, like Blackberry and many of the HTC phones running Windows Mobile, were also popular among consumers and enthusiasts. Teens frequently exchanged BBM PINs, and IT departments were a fan of BES, arguably the first MDM.

As for Nokia itself, it had a pretty solid following in Europe with its Symbian phones. They weren't as popular in America, but a solid foothold, they had.

What Nokia *really* lacked, however, was an analogue to iTunes. Nokia actually had some pretty good phone management software over the years, but it was tucked away as an afterthought, rather than Nokia treating it as a first-class reason to have a Nokia phone. Without it, moving from a Nokia 3310 to a Motorola Razr was just a matter of moving over contacts, rather than shifting ecosystems. With no ecosystem of their own, Nokia had to complete on features to retain loyalty...and then the whole Steven Elop thing happened, and that was pretty much curtains for Nokia as a consumer-facing brand.

Remember when coal companies paid employees in coal miner credits that were only good at the company store, and you had to rent your housing from the same company on the mine's land. You had zero chance of retiring, and basically worked until you died. We're almost back to those days.

We need a Stop killing electronics movement to complement the stop killing games movement. Concerning the design of electronics that cannot be operated at some random time in the future when the manufacturer decides to shut down their cloud servers.

In this case, if you've connected them via HomeKit then they'll carry on working without issue.

Unless you need to rebuild your home network or factory reset the device for some reason to troubleshoot it, Then it will be bricked.
The unit also effectively lost its resell value as the new owner won't be able to set it up on their new Homekit network.

...Because they didn't do a lick of marketing.

I had a Nokia 6.2, 7.1, and 7.2 phone...and they were all fantastic. They included one management app, a few wallpapers, and a few custom ringtones...but after that, they were bone stock Android phones without all the extra gunk that Samsung adds. This is a blessing and a curse; I appreciate that they didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel, but they also had nothing notable to set them apart. The Lumia phones were at least visually unique and had solid cameras for their day, but while I appreciate Nokia showing some restraint with the shovelware, it also meant that they were slightly-cheaper Pixels.

They had a handful of other issues that make me completely unsurprised they didn't make meaningful inroads. First and foremost, they weren't sold through carriers. They were exclusively retail/aftermarket phones. I got mine at Microcenter, but that's because I made it a point to ignore any of the free-upgrade or installment-purchase offers from my carrier. Most people get their phones from the carrier; the absence of that option severely cut down their potential customer base.

AT&T also screwed over the handful of users who had them back in 2022 by mandating VoLTE, which the phones didn't support. In fairness, this also caused issues with a number of slightly-older Samsung flagships as well, but that didn't help, either.

Finally, it was ironic that most people's recollection of Nokia phones were that they were indestructible, the 7.x and 6.x phones I had scratched easily, and had screens that were more delicate than other contemporary phones at the time. To add insult to injury, there were far fewer choices for protective cases - they existed, sure, but they were almost never available retail; Otterbox only had options for a subset of Nokia phones, even for mail order.

So yeah, it's completely unsurprising that a revival of the Nokia brand didn't work out well.

Coding was dead with 4GL. Then again with RAD tools in the 1990s like PowerBuilder. I've heard people argue coding was dead with UI coding tools like Scratch. Coding has been dead for decades. Still a lot of coding jobs, though.

"High Income" countries tend to be profit-driven. As in, profit isn't just "a" motive, it becomes "the" motive for the entire society. Once that happens, pressure is applied from the top down to extract as much profit potential as possible from the populace. Turns out when you need everyone in the population working full time jobs just to keep the profit potential climbing, it's kinda difficult to imagine having time to properly raise a family. Who in their right mind wants to have a child when they know they'll have to hire out raising that child to either daycare, a nanny, or some other form of hired parental substitution? You can't focus an entire population on the importance of hard work for profit and/or survival and still expect child-rearing to be important to them.

We shouldn't need to study why this is happening. We should need to study how to balance the need for profit with the need to continue having a viable population. Not that we're on the verge of complete population collapse. It's not an overall bad thing for us or our environment to maybe let the population naturally slow a bit from our former frenetic population climb, but we probably should start figuring out how to turn that natural slow-down now when we hit a point where we feel we've rebalanced. Because one thing is for certain, we're not going to turn the ebb of population growth into a huge growth again in an instant, and it'd be nice to have some idea how to achieve it in a long-term balanced way when the day comes we actually need to be concerned for any reason other than the "growth is important to maintain ever growing profits" reason.

I see.. Well this is unlikely to affect installs of Ubuntu then, unless you actually install it as a graphical desktop environment. Containerizing Chromium may be a very smart decision for them; however.. the program is a huge security risk, since it interacts with untrusted websites and likely has 0day vulnerabilities yet to be discovered. Sandboxing Chromium's file access to a container could help mitigate some potential exploits.

I just have no need, since there are several other perfectly robust solutions, and snapd or whatever they call it is late to the party. QEMU-KVM with a separate virtual machine window for each of my Chromium sessions. plus Qubes OS.

There's another problem in that the Smithsonian owns the Discovery now, and their bill "requires the director" of this Private institution to not only work with NASA to plan a move of the shuttle, But also to Transfer title ownership. In other words an eminent domain takings. The US Constitution has this thing called the 5th amendment which requires that just compensation: Fair market value be paid for such a taking.

How much money will the US government be required to pay the Smithsonian as "Fair market value" for the Discovery in order to conduct this taking? I'm pretty sure 85$ Million doesn't cover it. I would guestimate they need to pay out $3 Billion at a bare minimum not including all the costs for logistics in order to actually perform the move.

It'd take a lot more than the $85 million in the bill just to re-commission one of these.

They were decommed, And probably no longer maintained nor owned by the US government. How much to buy back the remains of those aircraft just to try and rebuild them? They might be better off contracting Boeing to build a new shuttle carrier at this point.

Nothing. The budget reconciliation process allows them to congress to set aside money for things, And corrupt politicians can never pass up the opportunity to propose some money be set aside for pet projects in their district - helps them stand for re-election.. See guys? I got the shuttle to be moved back to our district; you should vote for me so I can get more special stuff for you.

There really isn't a reason why it can't be cut apart and crudely welded back together

Yes there is. That would destroy the authenticity of the artifact completely from a preservation perspective; it would no longer be the Discovery intact. That is tantamount to cutting up the Mona Lisa and pasting it back together. And the trust that owns the shuttle should never agree to it. Congress can go f*** themselves.