1. Were the safety guards, which were optional, installed?

2. We know investigators are looking into the computer system, does this mean the computer can also set the switch settings?

If the answers are "no" and "no" respectively, it was likely an accidental bump.

If the answers are "yes" and "no", then one of the pilots lied.

If the answer to the second one is yes, then regardless of the answer to the first, I'd hope the investigation thoroughly checks whether the software can be triggered into doing so through faulty data or the existence of software defects.

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.

The companies in question should just pass on the fees to their users. Want to use your Chase account with a third-party payment provider? That's a $15 service fee. When Chase starts bleeding customers, they'll rethink their strategy.

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>

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but presumably the second plan offers more than just 40% more videos per day. :-D

Yeah, the snark is high in this thread.

But in all seriousness, $3,499 really is an order of magnitude too expensive to compete against Quest at $499. If they had game availability that could compete with Quest, they might be able to get away with more like $750, but not $3.5k, or even $2k, realistically. It's just way too overpriced for something that in practice is only usable for gaming.

$3,490.99 to $4,391.99

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.

No, that's adding a zero. :-)

Ah, but for the most part, that money just sits there. Investing money in stocks has only limited impact on anything, in practice, which is why it doesn't impact inflation much. The money doesn't ever get spent on anything that meaningfully contributes to strengthening the economy.

It is, but not proportionately. The increase in funds availability does increase demand, which increases scarcity, but the price people spend on goods and services doesn't increase to absorb all of the extra money going in — just some of it. That's why if you compare San Jose, CA to Jackson, TN, the median salary differs by more than a factor of 2.8, while the overall cost of living differs by only a factor of 1.9 (and if you ignore the housing costs that are largely caused by San Jose being landlocked, by only a factor of 1.5).

While true, absent government intervention in how people run their companies, you can't prevent scarcity. Scarcity allows companies to charge higher prices for the same amount of labor, so except when you're talking about true commodities, companies have a perverse incentive to keep supply down as much as possible, so long as they stay below the point where the profit margins become too high relative to the barriers to entry into the market and another competitor is encouraged to enter the market and compete with them.

I suspect that Apple's hardware design teams are rather fluid in terms of what projects they work on. Certainly nothing fundamentally prevents Apple from shifting them to work on the next-next iPhone design, or designing eyeglasses with a HUD, or designing some other new consumer device that someone comes up with. There's really no need for an updated version of the Vision Pro hardware right now, IMO, unless doing so would reduce the price by a factor of 4 to make it able to compete with Oculus. They'd be *way* better off having those people work on other projects until the technology reaches a point where there is a pressing need to do a hardware revision.

I can't imagine. Spending more money on Vision Pro hardware right now seems like throwing good money after bad. For most users, Vision Pro is a fun toy, and an expensive one at that. Toys don't get upgraded very often even if they work well and are frequently used. Unfortunately for Apple, surveys show that users aren't using them very much at all, and there's no reason to believe that CPU speed has anything to do with the lack of use, which means you should expect nearly zero upgrades unless Apple takes a cue from the PC playbook and makes them connector-compatible with the existing design so that users can bring them into an Apple retail store and get a $500 main board swap. And even then, upgrades would be a hard sell.

Similarly, users who don't own one are not going to be persuaded to buy one because the new version is faster. Cutting a zero off the price, yeah, but faster, no.

What Apple should do is focus on making the software and user interface not suck. Once they get it to that point and sales start to pick up, *then* start thinking about a new version with a faster CPU. For starters, what we want to see is:

• 100% compatibility with iOS apps (and remove the option to not make apps available on Vision Pro)
• 100% compatibility with Mac apps
• Virtual keyboard that supports touch typing (probably using a fair bit of AI to figure out what is likely being typed)

Get those three things, and the platform will be an immediate success. As long as doing any meaningful work with the device requires being tethered to a physical keyboard, which completely defeats the purpose of using a headset, and as long as a significant number of apps that you might want to run cannot be used at all without being tethered to a Mac, any marketing claims of it being a "spatial computer" are rather comically aspirational, to the point of being an outright lie.

Alternatively, Apple could try to make Vision Pro compete with Oculus by throwing money at the gaming industry in one form or another, but that will still have a pretty limited market, and would require Apple acknowledging that it's really just a high-end gaming headset, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Oh, and you'd probably need controllers to make that work well, so that would be a pretty big pivot.

And of course, Apple could also pivot by acknowledging that Vision Pro was the wrong approach for augmented reality and take a cue from Android XR instead of Oculus, by building an iOS-compatible eyewear fashion accessory that provides a HUD rather than a full active blending of reality with computer-generated content, and supports a more modest feature set, such as real-time text translation, reminding you of people's names and recent conversations, highlighting foods it thinks you might like on restaurant menus, providing access to email and text messages without whipping out your phone, letting you watch movies while out for a walk, etc.

None of these things involve taking Vision Pro and giving it a faster CPU, though. That's just pouring money down the drain. The only rational reason to do that would be if they're going to run into contractual costs related to continuing to build the M2 chip in small quantities and if the R&D costs for doing the board rev are less than the projected annual cost of continuing to make (or stockpile) the old chips. This seems unlikely to me, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it is a possibility.

This is statism, writ large.

You get paid for work you PERFORM, but not work you RECORD. Copyright is anti-individual rights and liberties.

I'll be glad when Ai truly replaces all of these artists.