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.

Oh, there are also "reaction" channels with an anime character in lieu of an actual human reactor. But again, those are older and probably not what the article is talking about. (I suspect those may have got started because there were people who for one reason or another wanted to create reaction content without showing their face, which is fundamentally unworkable for obvious reasons, but that doesn't always stop people from trying things.)

I think it's talking about the AI-generated science-fiction stories that keep showing up in the sidebar (if you use the default-view mode). If they're talking about the ones I'm thinking of, the titles are typically along the lines of "We thought everything was fine, until the humans came," or some schlock like that. I've never actually *watched* one of the videos, but I don't need to; you can tell they're AI generated from the thumbnail and title. I've hit "Don't Recommend Channel" on at least a couple of dozen of them, but of course the AI slop purveyors just keep creating new channels (in much the same way that low-quality manufacturers keep creating new unpronounceable brand names to flood Amazon search results with hundreds of copies of exactly the same thing).

There are also channels where an AI voice just reads the comment section from a reddit thread, and the video is a loop of recycled junk gaming footage; but those have been around for a lot longer and so are probably not what the article is talking about. Also, until you've seen (at least the first few seconds of) a handful of the videos, it's not obvious from the thumbnail and title alone, just how lame those channels are. The new ones are much more obviously AI-generated.

I happened to be aware of the existence of a extension made by someone else that offers domain-level opt-in consent to run script in a particular web browser. I cited the extension's title and author and deliberately left out any URL. I thought that would have been adequate to imply lack of conflict of interest. A user has implied to me that it is not. What means of citing a source would have been adequate?

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.

Most User-agent strings that don't contain "bot" nor "Mozilla/" were in Anubis's allowlist last I checked.

Yet. Because Anubis is free software, and because its hash happens to be the same as the proof of work of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, someone could modify Anubis to tie the SHA-256 puzzle to the Bitcoin block that a mining pool is working on.

Until someone writes a browser extension to offload solving the hashcash to WebGPU.

Laptops tend to have an always-on CPU spike monitor: the exhaust fan. So do phones and tablets: they get warm. So do older, less expensive, or small-form-factor desktop computers: they get stuck on the interstitial for up to a minute.

This already exists. Use an extension to make script-in-the-browser opt-in per domain, such as the Firefox extension "Javascript Control" by Erwan Ameil.

Eww.

Just grab some sheet music that's too old to be under copyright, and run it through a synthesizer. You'll get an uninspired performance, but at least the composition will be good. Much better than AI-generated slop.

I seem to remember a service called Coinhive that offered a script to make the viewer's device mine the cryptocurrency Monero in the background. I forget if it had an option to hide the article until a particular amount was mined. (Coinhive shut down when too many intruders started installing its script on other people's websites.)

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.

They're not saving money. They're retasking office workers who make $100+ per hour to do work they usually pay a lot less for.

OTOH, if it keeps customers from having bad experiences because the system is overwhelmed, it may be a good use of those expensive workers.

Nah. These are salaried workers being asked to do something during their normal work hours. It's basically not possible to avoid paying them.

Weekdays 10 am to 6 pm. That's normal work hours. Unless they're being forced to use vacation time, they're being paid.