As youâ(TM)ve pointed out many times, the UK is much smaller than Canada, and this means that EV charging is incredibly straightforward for me

In another slashdot post about EVs, a poster was saying that it 'feels like' it would be impossible to drive across Canada in an EV in the middle of winter.

I pointed out that A Better Route Planner exists, and he doesn't need to 'feel' anything about it, he can just go look. And yes, it turns out that with a modern EV, even in the middle of winter, you can drive cross country with zero issues. Charging added something like six hours or so on to the several thousand KM trip, and that assumed all fast-chargers and no overnight charging at a hotel or anything.

The minute you switch from that mentality to âoeIâ(TM)ll charge while I do something elseâ, it all just slots into place. So on road trips, I charge when I eat or while Iâ(TM)m parked up for the day (or overnight).

Yup. You *have* to change your mentality away from 'refueling is an activity/event in and of itself' to 'refueling is something that happens while the car is parked anyway while I'm sleeping/shopping/pissing/eating/whatever.'

treating EVs as thought theyâ(TM)re inconvenient ICE vehicles instead of adapting your modus operandi even the slightest iota will lead to you having a shit experience.

Truth. I see this attitude a lot.

"I don't want to sit around for half an hour while my car charges." Yeah, that's why we don't do that; we plug in the car and wander off to do something.

But even *if* it's a charger in the middle of nowhere and you're stuck sitting there charging, I'd rather half an hour in the car, while the heater's running, than standing outside for a few minutes in -30c plus wind chill pumping gas.

Materials to build Henry Ford's first factory were delivered by horse-drawn carts.

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.

Your formula is a just a low-speed approximation of the actual formula for kinetic energy, and it is not accurate at relativistic speeds. In the actual relativistic formula, the amount of energy increases towards infinity as the mass approaches the speed of light.

"Sir, we need to know how fast the earth spins so we can aim our missiles."

Very well then. Carry on, ensign.

Not sure off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that it has something to do with Planck units.

It wasn't that long ago that people were making posts on this site confidently claiming that "Maybe machines can beat humans at chess, but they will never be able to beat the best human players at go!"

More importantly, how will they be able to spot the trojans in the code that are part of the AI's plan to eliminate humans and take over the world?

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.

Thanks for making it clear that you're a fucking ignoramus and that everything you say can safely be ignored.

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.