Those have already been deployed. They are flown to the front by the operator, who will in most cases also designate the target, after which the drone will engage it autonomously. Jamming is most effective at close range, so that's when you want the AI to take over.

Just wait until these little bastards have on-board AI that visually identifies targets and kills them autonomously. That is the next step. The jamming of radio remote control has already lead to the use of fiber (they literally carry miles of fiber optic line that unspools as they fly, making them impervious to RF jamming, at the cost of reduced range). The next logical step is to allow them to function without any human input - that gives them both range and immunity from jamming.

This is not good.

They have recovered the switches, and they are quite intact. As shown in this video. They will absolutely know if these had the safety mechanism or not.

Further, the fact that they were turned off 1 second apart fits the scenario that they did have the safety mechanism in place, and that the pilot had to lift up on the switch, then toggle it rearwards (cutting off the fuel), each individually, as opposed to purposefully or accidentally flipping them both off at the same time.

Sorry I guess I'm going to have to ask a more specific question. Do you have an example of anybody owning a few million $ in bitcoin *exchanging ALL of it* for something that is not Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency or crypto asset. The fact that you can exchange a small amount of bitcoin for the equivalent amount of dollars does not prove anything.

There are examples of people exchanging their entire hold of hundreds of millions in gold or stocks, without the value of those commodities crashing. Would like proof this is the same for bitcoin.

Do you have ANY examples of somebody exchanging more than about 1 bitcoin for anything other than other cryptocurrency?

With a wild twisting of words this author added "meaning the emissions were dumped up-front in China's coal plants" to try to make this sound bad.

ALL "manufacturing emissions" are "dumped up-front". There is not something special about China or using coal. And even with the 2x or more CO2 emissions of coal, a solar power panel replaces all that CO2 emission in just a few months, which is an awful lot better than a lot of other things that people claim are green.

I think you are confusing marginal tax with actual tax rate. I am very well paid, and my effective tax rate is like 35%. Still high, but I have socialized medicin, cheap care in my old age, and my kids got both free university degrees and a stipend. Also my parents are well taken care off, and won't need my help.There are ways to lower my tax rate further, but not worth it to pursue for me. Most people also save up fairly well in their 401k equivalents. Calling it "optional" is really only technically correct. Corporate taxes are basically flat rate and I think 22% at the moment, lowest in the EU.

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.

I thought that's what the front page was. It keeps wasting space with things I'm not interested in, or actively dislike.

New Video from The Primagen!
<block channel>

NotAIHonestly Gets Rare Interview with The Primagen!
<block channel>

FrierenFan04 Reacts to !AIH's Interview with Primagen!
<smashes keyboard>

How is this upvoted? I have seen news story after news story showing when all the alerts happened, and what they were. It is extremely well documented. The alerts went out in plenty of time - the warnings went out over an before the river in that area had begun to rise, and watches and other alerts four hours before that.

The problem with biased political rants like what you're spouting is they will result in more deaths. That's because the REAL reason these girls died is not going to be addressed if you want to make Trump, or even the NOAA, the bad guys.

The failure is in the extremely localized levels - that is the local government and even the camp itself. The NOAA can't know that in the absolutely insane amount of thousands of square miles they forecast for that there would be a summer camp in particular danger. That is up to local authorities. You want to place a camp right on the banks of a river, in one of the nations most risky flood zones? Then the local authorities are the ones with emergency services, building code inspection and enforcement, on and on, who are the ones who are supposed to make sure these kinds of situations can be handled. For example the fire department will come and inspect the place for fire safety - exits, alarms, fire plans, fire drills, fire extinguishers and on. Their flooding requirements / plan was token at best, and that is why people died at the camp.

This is a wake up call for local governments to require alarm systems to trigger evacuation to higher ground. What triggers it? How do they know? Is the business responsible for the costs? The county? That is what has to be done to prevent this from happening again.

Here are all the alerts that went out, in spite of what your post says.

is exactly the reason that I have all alerts silenced on my phone. I support the concept of Amber alerts, but when there are 20 different colored alerts all operating under the same umbrella, and when non-custodial parent issues get lumped under the same umbrella as "child snatched from the playground", I just don't want to hear about it anymore.

But it points out an issue that should be addressed. If I lived in an area with tornados or flash floods, I want a warning - but I don't want a warning aimed at people 10 miles away. We need to move away from the broadcast radio mindset, and into a "We know where you are, we know where and what the hazard is, we're going to inform the people who need to know about this".

I live in Phoenix, which has some summer thunderstorms, some quite spectacular. It's not uncommon for the NWS to issue a "flash flood advisory" covering 100 square miles. Frankly, I live on a rise 100' above the lowlands; if I have to worry about a flash flood, then I'm terribly late in building an ark. The County has weather stations in an array all over the city; the County has topographic maps and historical data about where water likes to go in heavy rains. Marrying those two to decide which ravines are going to (or are getting) filled should be easily do-able, as is notifying people in danger from those specific ravines. I want that alert, not the "sometime today it's possible that a thunderstorm will fill a ravine somewhere in the county" alert.

The difference being that evidence is something we can find, while proof doesn't exist outside of abstract realms like mathematics, so there's no point in trying to find it.

17USC106:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following

[...]

(4) in the case of [...] musical [...] works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(emphasis mine).

17USC101 defines public performance:

To perform or display a work “publicly” means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered

it also defines perform as:

To “perform” a work means to [...] play, [...] it, either directly or by means of any device

So, playing your CD in a place that is "open to the public" is performing it publicly, and the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do that. This means that if you want to do it you need a license from the copyright owner.

Note also that a recording of music typically has three distinct copyrights on it. (1) The songwriter's copyright on the tune, arrangement, etc., basically everything you'd find in the sheet music other than the lyrics, (2) the songwriter's copyright on the lyrics and (3) the recording artist's copyright on the recorded performance. It's not uncommon for there to be a lot more than two songwriter copyrights, and in the case of recordings that contain significant sampling, there can be more copyrights in the recording, too.

To play the CD in your bar, you need licenses from all of the copyright holders. As others have mentioned, the record labels take this seriously and there's a high probability that infringing their copyrights this way will result in your being sued for millions of dollars, because the law authorizes statutory damages of up to $150,000 per offense.

They can hire and pay the temp workforce, of course, but the cost of hiring a bunch of people for a few days is a lot higher than the hourly wage you pay them. Best case you can go through some temp agencies, and I'll be surprised if they haven't already done that, but once you've exhausted that resource you're going to be getting bottom-of-the-barrel personnel, if you can even find them.

It makes sense that Amazon finds it more cost-effective to retask office workers for a few days. And if you're going to do that, and you don't want to interfere with those office workers' normal work too much, it makes sense to pitch it as optional so the office workers can determine how much time they can spare without interfering with anything essential. Likewise, it makes sense to give them access to conference rooms with VC equipment in the warehouses, so if they can take any urgent meetings during their warehouse shift.