Aside from it just being a scientific research project, in practice even if they were produced in combination it's almost certain that they would be refined and purified for medicinal use.

But it would be much easier to not have to separate them and do one molecule per plant/field.

That aside your monoamine oxidase would prevent all but the psylocin from being orally active. Maaybe if the tobacco were very carefully dried and not fermented you could smoke it.

Now if they were to engineer in some harmaline/telepathine and put it into a tomato you could make some very special marinara sauce. The acids would act like a 'lemon-tec' and heating could perhaps be doing some decarboxalating. I have no idea if people experiment with mushrooms and ayahuasca simultaneously.

I can't wait for the Epstein Class to start raiding pasta shops to protect their black markets. :/

In New Hampshire people have, in RADAR cases, been able to subpoena the operators, the calibrators, the calibration certificates, and the source code, on these bases.

The judge allows it, the prosecution drops the case.

One strategy is to demand a trial on every small fine to tilt the economics in favor of liberty.

Follow the money.

This stinks of sabotage inflicted by unethically motivated actors.

Presuming they're not just incredible fools, which we ought not assume.

But you've got to do both. Doubting oneself is "critical thinking". Doubting other sources of authority is "independent thinking".

The thing is, nobody has enough expertise to be an independent thinker in every area. So you essentially MUST delegate your ideas in some areas (variable between people) to external authorities. At which point what you "believe" depends on which authorities you choose.

A related question is "how firm is that belief?". This also tends to vary wildly with little apparent (to me) reason behind it. This is one feature that *can* be related to IQ, but isn't always.

AI has been running at a big loss to get the users hooked. It was inevitable that prices would start climbing. That process is nowhere near done, running AI is expensive as hell.

Once the market starts reflecting the actual costs, you can bet the cost/benefit will not be nearly as rosy as it looks now. But some customers will already have gotten themselves between a rock and a hard place and will be sucked dry, then discarded. Those "expensive" people that are getting dumped will start looking like a bargain, but they will have already been snapped up by smarter companies by the time management that can't see past their own toes figures that out.

All of this makes me remember a short story reading assignment in the 5th grade. It was about kids growing up in a society where machines did all of the intellectual work. To them, writing was 'squiggles'. They managed to disable a filter on their "bard" (a story teller for children) and had it tell them a tale of machines ruling over Man.

Nobody expects prophesy from a 5th grade reading assignment.

It's not just widespread, it's universal. What varies from person to person is the domain that they apply thinking to, and how they validate the authority they choose to trust.

Nobody is an "independent thinker" on every topic. Wherever one is an expert, one tends to be an "independent thinker" in that domain. Where you don't feel knowledgeable, you tend to accept an authoritative source...possibly after doing some amount of checking to see whether others think it reliable.

I don't think it's directly related to IQ. I also don't think it's restricted to chatbots. A lot of people are willing to accept the opinion of any authoritative source that they've accepted. Think religion or political party. Once they accept it, they stop questioning it's proclamations.

Note that this also applied to those who accept the proclamations of scientists or compilers. Once you accept an authoritative source, you pretty much stop questioning it. It's been multiple decades since I really argued with a compiler...unless it was a known bug from a source I trusted. I generally just assumed that I misunderstood what the language meant by that construct. (Of course, the few times I really didn't accept it, I eventually turned out to be wrong. Oh.)

Nah, AWS provides logistics to military and intelligence and has for quite a while.

It's tough to argue, "these aren't military targets, we just rent the equipment and provide services to the military for hundreds of billions of dollars."

Which is probably what people will argue.

Do they only have to state a reason or does somebody have to adjudicate whether that reason is validly "justified"? We have a Public Utilities Commission here that pretends to do such things.

Or is this one of these, "you can't know, so try it and a judge will tell you what the law was" sort of things?

Maybe somebody who understands Italian jurisprudence can clarify their theory of law.

Agreed.

Also Major Tom shouldn't try to fix anything on a spacecraft if it's somebody else's job.

I don't want to say I heard Mission Control on NASA TV reading down a procedure to tell an ISS commander how to tie his shoes but it felt like that.

Velcro, I guess.

Most helpful comment of the week.

Much kudos.

Yes, and they didn't notice that the lab tests were all done with plastic gloves.

I don't know, I went back to CPAN after I came to understand the socioeconomic and cultural ramifications of mandatory white space.

Papers, please?

"They yearn for the greenscreens."