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.

... remember to read the headlines of currently posted stories before starting work. It doesn't take long and forgetting to do it does not help repair the tarnished reputation of the Slashdot editorial crew.

where the avionics had been written by an AI ?

... to raise your kids up, that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

All the Zappa fans aged out, probabaly.

Do not worry - DOGE will identify this as inefficiency and stop it. At least in a sane world this is what would happen, however ...

I watch a lot of maritime disaster videos, so YouTubeâ(TM)s genius algorithm thinks Iâ(TM)d be interested in traveling on a cruise ship.

I moved away from CentOS when RedHat played its packaging games. I had installed RedHat for customers, no more - I will push Debian or Linux Mint - both of which are completely free to use and do not require registration.

No.

No breaks or excuses.

You cant bolt security on after the fact. The entire protocol and application MUST take security into account from the start.

Trying to add security on after the fact is how we ended up with ActiveX on web pages and VBA in documents and NEVER WERE ABLE TO MAKE IT SECURE.

To make web browsers secure, they pretty much all started over (website, firefox) because trying to strap it on was impossible.

When going on duty to a sensitive location all personal mobile 'phoned must be left at home in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” --- switching them off while on duty is not enough.

To make this work the employer must provide locked down 'phones with minimal apps installed; if this means that the security guard cannot chat with his lover on Instagram/whatever then tough shit - they are well paid to protect someone not to chat on social media while on assignment. This might also make the guards more effective as they will not have social media distractions when they are supposed to be keeping an eye out for assassins/whatever.

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.

Of the money raised it goes to two sorts of artistes:
* The composer of the music and the lyricist (ir there are words)
* The performers, ie band/orchestra and singer
Of the money taken from the venue where the music is played, how much goes to the artistes above ?

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.

No, they actually don't. What they do is regurgitate the sequence of tokens most likely to follow the current token based on a model generated from the training data. They certainly can regurgitate the exact contents of the training data set, but they can equally make up strings based on the model weights. That's what makes their output so pernicious: since it's what would likely follow, we see it as plausible and don't immediately flag it as something we need to check on. The only way to find the problems then is to check everything regardless of how plausible it appears to be.