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.

I can't really imagine keeping 2x more trash cans in my kitchen and dealing with having to work around and walk around them....it's full as it is.

But hey, it's a free country...you do you.

I don't see any compelling reason to change a lifetime of behavior for no perceived value, and add inconvenience to my daily life.

To each his own...sounds like a major PITA to me.

Where I am...each house has 1 or more general garbage cans...but plastic things, uniform size and shape....and on trash days (2 a week) you wheel the "bin" out to the road side....the truck comes along and a big mechanical arm picks up each can and dumps it in...

There's no garbage men there to even look at what you're throwing out.

On a different day of the week, I do see folks putting out their small recycle bins, the ones that want to participate.

To save money, they've set up this system so that we don't have 2-3 guys hanging on the back of each garbage truck grabbing each can and dumping it...there's pretty much just 1 person driving the truck and the truck grabs, dumps and returns each can....

Again, I don't have anything against recycling....but participation is and should be optional...where I live.

Johnny Fever on WKRP.

"When everyone is out to get you, paranoid is just....

.......good thinking"

LOL....oh, don't forget the Phone Cops!!

Thankfully where I live....no one forces anyone to recycle.

You can if you want...but you are free to decide if you want to bother or not.

We don't have any "trash police" here....we've got better things to spend our tax dollars on.

I'm kind of mystified by the absolute visceral hostility of a large number of Americans towards recycling.

I think it has to do with some cities actually forcing people to recycle....where they actually go through what you throw out and fine you...?

Thankfully I've never lived anywhere like that, but I'd be pissed if that were the case.

I'm glad people that want to do that can....I have nothing against it, but being forced to is another thing entirely.

I don't have room in my kitchen for 3x different cans to sort and throw shit out....nor the patience or time to bother.

But I support those that wish to do so....

I'm glad that down here where I live, you don't have to bother recycling unless you are so inclined.

If you want to throw pretty much anything in the trash here, they'll take it, no questions asked.

For example, a touchscreen is nearly a requirement for decent GPS UI. There are applications where the multitouch gestures are hard to beat for the UI.

I have a phone for that....no need for another one on car touchscreen that will eventually age out....

Fuck all touch screens in cars...

I want physical controls...the ones on the central console of the old days worked great, I could do most everything by feel or if I had to look...1-2 second glance.....

I don't want a fucking ipad to control everything when I'm driving a car, especially at higher speeds...

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.

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.