We have hard numbers that clearly show that everything is harder for the younger generations
We have hard numbers that show that each successive generation has higher same-age inflation-adjusted incomes, wealth and home ownership rates. Gen Z is doing particularly well. That hardly indicates "everything is harder".
. There were fewer gen X, even fewer Millennials, and far fewer gen Z. Wages didn't keep up with GDP growth.
Whether wages kept up with GDP growth depends on the details of how you measure wages, but it's worth pointing out that each of the succeeding generations has had higher income (inflation-adjusted) than the previous one. They mostly don't realize it unless they look at the numbers because expectations have risen with incomes, but it's true. At least in the US; I haven't seen UK numbers.
I can't really read these comments because it amazes me how dead people are inside. There is music that is full of human spirit and culture and there is AI slop mimicking it. I sincerely hope the AI slop is just being played in the background like elevator music, because if that is what people prefer than it will just take the human connection out of music.
Meh. If people can't tell the difference between "music full of human spirit and culture" and "AI slop" then by definition it's a distinction without a difference. If people can tell the difference and prefer the "human" music, then there's no problem to be solved here. If they prefer the "AI slop"... I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't mean that we need to label it so people avoid it. Let people listen to what they want to listen to.
Google just considers cost because it improves their bottom line
Yes, Google is a business, not a charity.
You seem to be saying that larger sizes increase the probability of multi-disk failures. Are you saying that because larger disks have higher probability of single-disk failure, or just because large disks increase reconstruction time, increasing the probability of another failure during reconstruction?
If it's really true that the chances of more than two simultaneous disk failures is approaching one... these disks must be extremely unreliable.
4. Identify their true identities and work the legal angle from there
What legal angle? Unless they're inciting violence, conspiring to commit crimes, or similar, these assholes have the same right to free speech as anyone else.
Well, that is how communism was framed. communism was the great evil, the killer of capitalism and religion
Which was pretty silly. Communism should have been framed more simply and accurately as the killer of massive numbers of people, mostly through starvation, but also through ideological purges. Fascism can't hold a candle to Communism in terms of death toll. Neither can religion, at least in absolute numbers. In the more distant past religion did some serious large-volume murdering on on a percentage basis, but the total numbers were smaller then.
It's 2025 and that feels so incredibly silly and we keep it going because "that's the way it's always been" and that seems silly.
To the extent that the situation you refer to is a problem, it's a problem of market share and the resulting funding for ongoing development of an open source OS. Google's ability to enforce requirements on Android OEMs is limited because the big players or any significant consortium of the smaller players can simply choose to cut ties with Google if Google is too pushy.
Yes, Chrome established a different business model from the outset. Android went a different direction because, rightly or wrongly, it was believed at the time that it was necessary in order to fend off other participants in the smartphone ecosystem, and over time it has gotten harder to change the model, not easier. In particular, one major Android OEM has amassed so much market dominance that they can and often do simply refuse Google's requests. Legally, Google could cut ties, but that would be bad for Google and i think it would be bad for Android users, since it would instantly fragment the ecosystem. IMO, Android users (and I am one) are better off with a slower-moving but relatively unified ecosystem.
I think these are two different things. This is the merger of the Chrome OS and Android OS Teams inside Google. (Aka fire everyone involved in Chrome OS except for a few key players who have real value.) From what I heard, this actually mostly already happened in 2021.
No, this is about the merger of the platforms. It probably will eventually result in some reduction in staffing, but it's not happening now, and hasn't happened in any significant way. Both Android and ChromeOS have been relatively untouched by layoffs.
ChomeOS can also run most Android Apps. So other than running more Android apps faster or more efficiently the only other goal would seem to be more platform "lock-in."
The goal is to reduce engineering effort. Even Google has to consider costs.
This was announced on June 12, 2024.
It doesn't mean Android and ChromeOS will share a common UI. Android already supports several distinct user interfaces for different platforms (mobile, wearable, auto, TV), and there's lots of customization even within those spaces. I expect that once the transition is complete, ChromeOS will still look and act much like it does now. It may run Android apps a little better than it does now (though it already runs them fairly well). It'll just share a lot of infrastructure with Android underneath the surface.
Mice live about 18 months. A 10% increase is about 2 months. Some idiot sees the 10% increase and thinks 10% of 80 years = 8 years more human life. Nope. Longer lived creatures tend to benefit far less from these things. If something adds 2 months to a mouses life span, it will likely add about 2 months to a human's life span, not 8 years.
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'll trust psychonautwiki over your random speculation. Not to be mean, but I would like to add that if you're not familiar with it you probably don't have that much authority on the subject.
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 /
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.
Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.
