2 mushrooms hard to fuck up in America.
I remember selling like 5 lbs of morels when I was a kid and getting like $200. That was without even driving to the city to make the real money.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
2 mushrooms hard to fuck up in America.
I remember selling like 5 lbs of morels when I was a kid and getting like $200. That was without even driving to the city to make the real money.
Chicken of the Woods is the shit!!!
There are old mushroom foragers and then there are bold ones. There are no bold, old mushroom foragers.
My fucked up brain goes like, "woah, I wonder what death tastes like."
Amanita phalloides, if I'm not mistaken?
Technically it's still edible
Only once. ;)
You can do anything once.
Don't tempt me with a good time.
You'd have to use a very strange definition of edible. For something to be edible it does not only need to be able to fit down your throat, it has to be capable of nourishing you without harming you. You can swallow paper and it won't harm you, but it also can't nourish you and is thus inedible. You can eat this mushroom and it'll probably provide some kind of nourishment, but then it will swiftly kill you and thus it is inedible.
I would accept a definition of edible which includes things you can't digest. For example, gold can also be a food additive referred to by the code E175. Can't digest it, but it doesn't hurt you. So I could accept someone referring to gold as edible. But I think the barest, most universal element of something being edible is that it doesn't kill you. If literal deadly poison is considered edible one must wonder what the word "edible" is even supposed to mean.
Jimmy Neutron "sodium chloride" ass reply, "everything is edible at least once" is a common joke that works precisely because words' definitions are not rigid
Edit: I think it's best to leave this comment up as I originally wrote it, but I'm also going to go on the record to say that I could've and should've phrased this a lot more cordially.
Yeah, it's a very common joke which I argue does not work because despite the fact that there is leeway in how words are defined (that's kind of what my entire comment is about) there is no valid definition of edible which includes mushrooms that definitely kill you if you eat them.
Is blue sky "instance" just sub-domains of bsky.social ?!
Washington Post is @washingtonpost.com, so evidently not.
Edit: Bluesky has this about page which is relevant.
Neural networks are magical anywhere that near misses are good enough.
Companies keep using them as if they're infallible, when lives and fortunes are at stake.
Tech is not the problem.
If you give out hammers to everyone, some people will end up with smashed balls.
Tech is ravenously trying to convince the world they need AI for every aspect of their business. Tech wants you to think LLMs are infallible and they strongly imply that they are even if the fine print says otherwise. So personally I would say tech is very much part of the problem. One could say they are the root of the problem in fact.
The tech is not the problem.
I think he’s referring to literal technology itself as “Tech” and you’re referring to the people trying to sell it as “Tech”—aka “Big-Tech” as some would say
Yup, sounds like a classic miscommunication. I think we should all compromise and just agree capitalism is the problem lol.
I don't think the tech is the problem, it's the business drones trying to sell you it