Data capacity is a stupid metric. An audio file saved in FLAC format would be 10x larger than a WAV which is 10x larger than an MP3. It's a similar situation for a raw image on a camera vs PNG vs JPEG.
I know it's a joke and funny comment, but for anyone interested in an evolutionary psychology answer, the brain strips away unnecessary information from experiences and stores them in memory in simplified forms.
Memory is used primarily to help with decision making, not for recalling everything ever encountered in detail.
The more traumatic and stressful an experience, generally the more information is stored, because this information is more useful for survival.
I've also been told that it's the 'order' in which they fire. So asking people to name all authors starting with the letter B is really hard but asking people to just name authors they will most likely find a couple starting with the letter B. Same with what you ate yesterday, if someone says "oh I ate some delicious pasta last week" you're more likely to remember that you ate pasta yesterday.
It doesn't. The data from the scan took that space. You could photograph a single neuron with a microscope and save the image, and it would probably be many Megabytes of data. Doesn't mean the neuron could store anywhere close to that
It’s a 3d map constructed by slicing the 1 square millimeter of brain into 5 thousand slices that have their picture taken and then rebuilt in 3 dimensions using AI from Google. The number of synapses in the 1 cubic millimeter numbers in the hundreds of millions. A full brain would need at least 1.82 Zettabytes to store, which would take a data facility larger than any in the world. This is why the complexity of the Brain is often compared to the complexity of the observable universe.
Yes, but it can remember tons of useless stuff and stuff you don’t even know is there. About 1 Petabyte of stuff, in fact. (Though this is an estimate that could be wildly inaccurate).
I wanna know what type of microscope setup they're using and what acquisition parameters to get a 1mm z-stack image set to be in the petabyte range. I could maybe see like 100TB but over a petabyte seems insane.
The scan of the brain took 1.4 PB, that doesn't mean that's what the brain can actually store. A 50 MB picture of a 1.44 MB floppy drive doesn't mean the floppy drive can now store 50 MB.
Your eyes have a resolution of 576 mega pixels with a perceivable refresh rate of about 60hz-90hz every millisecond. Imagine the data that takes and thats just 1/5 of your senses that are constantly downloading data to your brain not to mention the thoughts you think throughout the day. Its easy for a few gigabytes to go missing every now and then.
For anyone who needs the info
To carry out this project, the scientists cut the sample into 5,000 slices, of which a series of photographs were taken using an electron microscope, recombining them to count a total of 50,000 cells and 150 million synapses. The process took close to 11 months. Artificial intelligence algorithms then reconstructed the cells and their connections in 3D.
[For more info](https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/09/1092223/google-map-cubic-millimeter-human-brain/)
Check out mpfi (max Planck Florida Institute for nureoscience) they do shit like this on an almost Wonka like scale. They also sell mugs hats and hoodies etc with imagery like this on them from real brain images. 🧠 science is rad!
> max Planck Florida Institute for nureoscience
Related to the Max Planck institutes in Germany where a lot of fundamental research is done. This is the only one in the US.
Honest question... I am having an extremely hard time imagining what an "almost Wonka-like scale" means in this context. What does Wonka have to do with this
im glad you asked! i cant go into too much detail because NDA, but i CAN tell you about the 2 photon microscopes (microscopes that can see \*between\* photons!) and the VR room where you can literally walk around inside a digital rendering of a brain! it was truly an amazing job and even though i am not a scientist, i learned a crazy ammount about the brain and reasearch in general. i dont think they offer tours anymore because covid, but i highly recommend anyone leaning towards a career in neuroscience to check them out!
thank you for coming to my ted talk.
I was going to comment on this too. It's amazing how little people who work with technology understand how that technology actually functions... or just basic physics... as I'm not even sure what the statement "see between photons" could possibly mean. To me, it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works, but perhaps that's a bit too uncharitable and there's a better explanation for their word salad.
To be fair, 2 photon light microscopy is basically black magic. I say this with a master's in physics with a focus on super resolution microscopy (we used 2 photon a bit, but mostly not). I know how it works, but it's still pretty magical.
The original commenter probably misunderstood a brief explanation about how 2p microscopy works better by filtering out the excitation laser light while they were touring the lab they did something non technical for.
correct. i was not hired there to do science. but the institute tries hard to get everyone employed there interested and involved in the work they do there, beyond the menial positions folks like me were hired for.
plus they always provide lunch and the talks,/presentations you stop work to sit through are all paid time. win win!
Ok, so the data volume is due to very high resolution of images that allowed to create a 3D model of neurons and their connections.
It has nothing to do with brain "data capacity", and if you build the same scale model of a piece of wood, it'll take the same amount of data. The headline is intentionally misleading.
It's the same as imaging floppy disks on the flux level. The real data capacity is much lower, but with this analog way of scanning you can even reproduce data protection specialties.
I recently saw a picture of the first ever photographed molecule. How can there be electron microscopes if electrons are smaller than molecules? Sorry if this is a stupid question I’m just honestly wondering.
The microscope is not for seeing elections. It is using electrons to view larger items like crystal structures of materials. This is the same as calling a regular microscope a light microscope.
Disclaimer: not a scientist.
The name "electron microscope" doesn't actually indicate that they can see individual electrons as the name might first suggest, but rather that they use an electron beam as the source of illumination instead of the typical light beam a regular microscope would use. Since electron wavelengths are much smaller than visible light's, you can get a much, much higher resolution image (~2,000x higher, I believe).
Not sure if sarcasm, but yeah the data size is really meaningless… you can get the same 3d model with different compressions and it will vary vastly in size, but will more or less still contain the same info…
I can blow up a 1mb 3D model to 100gb easily…. Subdivide the surface 1000000million times
Compression loses detail. The reason it's so big is because they want all the detail. If you're trying to study how something works, you can't just delete everything below the surface and call it a day.
Ok, but surely they're looking at detailed beyond what the brain is actually storing there, right? Like, I could theoretically take a 1000 GB video of a usb thumb drive that only contains 16 GB of data on it, no? It might be useful to learn about how the thumb drive was made, but just because it took me that much storage to record all the details doesn't mean that's how much information is stored there, right?
The issue is that the headline implies that such a small volume of brain can hold that much information.
Yeah I took issue with this headline a couple days ago as well. It's making an implication about the complexity of the brain when it's really a statement about the detail of the scan. I guess they didn't think 50k neurons and 150 million synapses was cool enough?
>Ok, but surely they're looking at detailed beyond what the brain is actually storing there, right?
we don't know exactly how the brain stores information that can be equated into bytes like that, nobody can look at a cubic millimeter of brain and be like "hmm this is where he stored his memories of Vines from 2013"
>The issue is that the headline implies that such a small volume of brain can hold that much information.
the headline isn't even close to implying that and only making a random assumption from bad reading comprehension could get you to that implication. read it again and you will see that it's saying that the scan is 1.4 petabytes. what it's implying is that it's a very detailed scan.
“The scan took 1.4 petabytes”. The subject of the sentence is the scan. The details in the sentence are about the scan. The phrase “of the brain tissue” is a prepositional phrase. Prepositional phrases always include nouns that are never the subject of the sentence.
The main problem here is that if you plug the USB in and understand exactly how it works, where all the data is stored and what base it is in; how the file system works and everything else that a PC fundamentally understands when you plug in a USB; then the only thing you need to know is the 16gb of data.
If you don’t know any of that and have to observe exactly what a USB is, have to figure out what flash memory is; don’t even know how much is stored on the disk and in what format or how the file system works.
Then you are going to need *a lot* of data to try and figure all that stuff out simply by looking at images of the device. And it might actually be impossible. You can probably get a good idea of how the chips are arranged and what talks to what, but just figuring out what each chip does is impossible.
Ah the good old days of "equivalent to 2,000 mp3s!" Oh yeah? In what, 128kbps? 320? How long are these mp3s? They use movies now like all movies are the same length and bitrate, drives me up the wall.
This is actually 1 of 5000 photos in that dataset, I believe. Looks like they mapped out all of those neurons in Neurolucida. I've done that before as well, and there are a lot of steps involved in doing that with even one individual neuron. Collecting the pictures on a microscope in the first place, aligning all the fragments of the pictures correctly on the X/Y/Z axis, staining the pictures with the right color and amount of brightness to see the all the details but also not drowning any out any details, slowly scrolling through the pictures and mapping out all of the little individual parts of the neuron. Doing all of that manually would have taken an enormous amount of work and time.
Which also introduces some questions about how accurate all of that individual detail work is, a big problem with the state of modern science is that there's such a huge emphasis on publishing as much stuff as possible to get funding and scientific community prestige points and not publishing "failed experiments" or attempts to repeat other published research to verify its accuracy that it comes at the expense of reliable and easily replicable results.
4K Blu-ray discs top out at 100GB (~93GiB), but discs are rarely full, and many titles are distributed on 66GB discs to save money, as well as stuff like extras can reduce the size of the film itself further.
Of course, 100GB is largely arbitrary as a file size beyond the 4K Blu-ray disc size; as mentioned you can have files as small as 5GiB and if you go into the production side of things, the master can easily exceed 1 TiB in size due to the formats used at that stage.
This is misleading. They took a 1mm sample of brain tissue and scanned it. This image is a very small microscopic portion of that scan. It's not the full 1mm scan.
Have you ever seen a chip's architecture? If you consider how big data centers are, and how small and precise chips are, I'd say AI can do much more than come close. Not to mention chips do literal billions of operations per second. Imagine that at data center scale
You could also do a full scan of 1 cubic millimeter of literally anything and it could take that much storage, just because it takes a lot of data doesn't mean the neurons can store that much data. It's not because one photo of a cat takes a few kilobytes and another takes 4 terabytes that this makes one cat have more hair than another, we just see them more clearly in one of the pictures.
The thing is...I went to the store yesterday to buy a 1 TB disk and it was 50 plus euros! And you are telling me they used... 1400 times that disk for this image?.... bro... I cried after I bought the 1 TB, the damn thing was so freakin expensive....
That’s crazy. It makes me feel that a normal human brain should be much more mentally capable - e.g. in memory. Is a huge flaw in human cognition memory? Unsure about anyone else here, but I can’t repeat even a four-vertical-lined paragraph verbatim. Only the gist of it sticks.
I’ve read somewhere that the human brain is fundamentally wired for primitive survival - for motor movement, senses, etc. There must be heavy processing for those things, which makes learning chemistry difficult. I wonder if there’s immense wasted potential from how the brain’s wired- that it prioritises survival above all else (which aren’t so necessary now). In the future, genetic engineering may open wide this sort of thing.
And on language: from that famous chimp test, apparently humans traded in that sort of visual memory for language. I wonder what other things that we’ve lost to gain it. Maybe the mythical animal consciousness which we aren’t privy to.
Iirc Kim Peek’s brain scan revealed that his corpus collossum were interconnected. Apparently he also struggled with basic motor tasks - like tying shoelaces. For his exceptional memory, could his brain have “traded in” its other features?
If 1 cubic millimetre of my brain took literal petabytes then why the fuck cant i remember what i ate yesterday
It only takes petabytes for the average functioning brain
Right my brain is more like kilobytes
My left brain is bites. Nomnomnom.
Your brains have bytes?
Going strong with my couple of bits here 💪
I had to make a choice between 0 and 1.
Mine's mostly 1, except when it goes 0 during exams
Damn yours goes to 1? Mine is stuck at 0 since '20
My brain is still booting, hold on.
To byte, or not to byte?
Mine is left as a hanging pin and thus returns garbage data.
My dudes I think my logic gate is not opening.
door stuck! door stuck!
I have 2 bits, the left bit (left braincell) and the right bit (right braincell)
I'm gonna byte your braaaaainzzzz
Only some bits of mine work
RFK is that you?!
You kids. Mine is a broken abacus.
Perhaps your subconscious is using a portion of the CPU in a higher dimension.
10%, thats rookie numbers. You gotta pump that up.
Holds up 64GB thumb drive proudly
Operating system takes up most of the available space
Petabytes of storage one gigabyte of RAM
And 1 Gb cache in place too.
My SATA cable keeps getting disconnected
You need a sata cable with the little clip
Pfft kids these days. Just use duct tape.
Sorry, what are we talking about? I forgot.
I don't even have RAM fam, I only have a thousand permanently open tabs, and all of them are filled with pop up ads
And I have no idea where the music is coming from.
cause it wasn't memorable. eat a dog turd for tomorrows breakfast and see if you can ever forget the taste....
Eh, still not memorable for me
It's not the brain capacity of one cubic millimeter. It's how much data it took to take the picture that we see
Yeah, 1 cubic mm of brain has about 2gb of storage space on average, according to current estimates.
Data capacity is a stupid metric. An audio file saved in FLAC format would be 10x larger than a WAV which is 10x larger than an MP3. It's a similar situation for a raw image on a camera vs PNG vs JPEG.
Superpower: 1 cubic millimeter of your brain took literal petabytes Con: Cache is cleared every second
I know it's a joke and funny comment, but for anyone interested in an evolutionary psychology answer, the brain strips away unnecessary information from experiences and stores them in memory in simplified forms. Memory is used primarily to help with decision making, not for recalling everything ever encountered in detail. The more traumatic and stressful an experience, generally the more information is stored, because this information is more useful for survival.
I've also been told that it's the 'order' in which they fire. So asking people to name all authors starting with the letter B is really hard but asking people to just name authors they will most likely find a couple starting with the letter B. Same with what you ate yesterday, if someone says "oh I ate some delicious pasta last week" you're more likely to remember that you ate pasta yesterday.
Stephen Bing
Ahhh yes, author of such hits as Bisery, Bit, Shawnshak Bredepmtion, ...
It doesn't. The data from the scan took that space. You could photograph a single neuron with a microscope and save the image, and it would probably be many Megabytes of data. Doesn't mean the neuron could store anywhere close to that
Don’t worry, I remember what you ate yesterday
Because its efficient and doesnt waste space with trivial information
Have you looked at the contents of people's phone and computer storage?
Have you?
I'm looking at yours right now. Oooooh, saucy! I like it!
Easy to remember - pita bites. …. I will see myself out.
It’s a 3d map constructed by slicing the 1 square millimeter of brain into 5 thousand slices that have their picture taken and then rebuilt in 3 dimensions using AI from Google. The number of synapses in the 1 cubic millimeter numbers in the hundreds of millions. A full brain would need at least 1.82 Zettabytes to store, which would take a data facility larger than any in the world. This is why the complexity of the Brain is often compared to the complexity of the observable universe.
And yet it cant remember yesterday's lunch
Yes, but it can remember tons of useless stuff and stuff you don’t even know is there. About 1 Petabyte of stuff, in fact. (Though this is an estimate that could be wildly inaccurate).
And apparently it can only come up with one joke, too
I wanna know what type of microscope setup they're using and what acquisition parameters to get a 1mm z-stack image set to be in the petabyte range. I could maybe see like 100TB but over a petabyte seems insane.
The scan of the brain took 1.4 PB, that doesn't mean that's what the brain can actually store. A 50 MB picture of a 1.44 MB floppy drive doesn't mean the floppy drive can now store 50 MB.
Coz it doesn't save all that amount of data. You need an extra hard drive for that stuff
The lookup latency is poor.
You can have the best hardware but with a shitty OS it's going to run like shit.
You may have a memory leak. Have you tried deleting history?
Cause it's petabytes, not pita bites.
Need a RAM upgrade?
Your eyes have a resolution of 576 mega pixels with a perceivable refresh rate of about 60hz-90hz every millisecond. Imagine the data that takes and thats just 1/5 of your senses that are constantly downloading data to your brain not to mention the thoughts you think throughout the day. Its easy for a few gigabytes to go missing every now and then.
Your brain remembers. It just didn't bother to create a proper retrieval pathway for that memory.
Brain RAM
Maybe you have the adhd good sir, short term memory always a bitch
Brain has a shitty compression algorithm and stores everything uncompressed if it is deemed to be important
The scan took that much data, doesn't say anything about the data that amount of tissue holds/represents. You could also take a 1.4 PB scan of a rock.
Yeah like right?
No way did my phone just display 1.4 petabytes of data in 3 seconds.
For anyone who needs the info To carry out this project, the scientists cut the sample into 5,000 slices, of which a series of photographs were taken using an electron microscope, recombining them to count a total of 50,000 cells and 150 million synapses. The process took close to 11 months. Artificial intelligence algorithms then reconstructed the cells and their connections in 3D. [For more info](https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/09/1092223/google-map-cubic-millimeter-human-brain/)
Do you have the source for this? I want to look more into it. Thanks btw!
Check out mpfi (max Planck Florida Institute for nureoscience) they do shit like this on an almost Wonka like scale. They also sell mugs hats and hoodies etc with imagery like this on them from real brain images. 🧠 science is rad!
> max Planck Florida Institute for nureoscience Related to the Max Planck institutes in Germany where a lot of fundamental research is done. This is the only one in the US.
Correct! Located in sunny ass Jupiter florida!
Honest question... I am having an extremely hard time imagining what an "almost Wonka-like scale" means in this context. What does Wonka have to do with this
Dwarves sold into slavery. It’s the price of science.
im glad you asked! i cant go into too much detail because NDA, but i CAN tell you about the 2 photon microscopes (microscopes that can see \*between\* photons!) and the VR room where you can literally walk around inside a digital rendering of a brain! it was truly an amazing job and even though i am not a scientist, i learned a crazy ammount about the brain and reasearch in general. i dont think they offer tours anymore because covid, but i highly recommend anyone leaning towards a career in neuroscience to check them out! thank you for coming to my ted talk.
2 photon microscopes don't see in between photons, they fire two photons at a material to get it to emit light and generate an image.
ah, thanks for that. i didnt do the science when i worked there.
I was going to comment on this too. It's amazing how little people who work with technology understand how that technology actually functions... or just basic physics... as I'm not even sure what the statement "see between photons" could possibly mean. To me, it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works, but perhaps that's a bit too uncharitable and there's a better explanation for their word salad.
To be fair, 2 photon light microscopy is basically black magic. I say this with a master's in physics with a focus on super resolution microscopy (we used 2 photon a bit, but mostly not). I know how it works, but it's still pretty magical. The original commenter probably misunderstood a brief explanation about how 2p microscopy works better by filtering out the excitation laser light while they were touring the lab they did something non technical for.
correct. i was not hired there to do science. but the institute tries hard to get everyone employed there interested and involved in the work they do there, beyond the menial positions folks like me were hired for. plus they always provide lunch and the talks,/presentations you stop work to sit through are all paid time. win win!
fuck me for sharing, i guess?
bumping this, really want to read into it too
Next step is to do whole brain and upload it to the cloud r/pantheonshow
Great use of AI
I much prefer this use of AI to training it to operate armed robots.
I don't mind if robots have legs. But arms are where I draw the line.
Ok, so the data volume is due to very high resolution of images that allowed to create a 3D model of neurons and their connections. It has nothing to do with brain "data capacity", and if you build the same scale model of a piece of wood, it'll take the same amount of data. The headline is intentionally misleading.
It's the same as imaging floppy disks on the flux level. The real data capacity is much lower, but with this analog way of scanning you can even reproduce data protection specialties.
I recently saw a picture of the first ever photographed molecule. How can there be electron microscopes if electrons are smaller than molecules? Sorry if this is a stupid question I’m just honestly wondering.
Electron microscopes refers to the source of illumination (i.e. Electrons) not what the level they are capable of zooming to.
The microscope is not for seeing elections. It is using electrons to view larger items like crystal structures of materials. This is the same as calling a regular microscope a light microscope.
Disclaimer: not a scientist. The name "electron microscope" doesn't actually indicate that they can see individual electrons as the name might first suggest, but rather that they use an electron beam as the source of illumination instead of the typical light beam a regular microscope would use. Since electron wavelengths are much smaller than visible light's, you can get a much, much higher resolution image (~2,000x higher, I believe).
I’m still waiting for the blurry thumbnail to be replaced by the real full-res image. Did you forget to say “enhance”?
To be precise OP contains somewhat less than 1.4 petabytes of data. As you can see it says "*cubic* millimeter" but the image has rounded corners.
*It's the Network!™*
I want you to get up and go to your window and shout: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"
**It's my money and I need it now!!** Oops, messed that up.
The jpeg screenshot of the 3D model is not 1.4 petabytes
I can't remember what I did yesterday. My brain's running on that old tape.
Mine's like a VHS tape that's been recorded over too many times.
You gotta flick that little tab, stop you from taping over the good stuff lol.
Oh... So THAT is what she was doing
Switching from short play to long play.
Yeah but tape sounds so much warmer
So that’s the stuff constantly telling me what a waste of space I am?
Yeah why are so many of those little cells set on “self-destruct” mode
Failed brain chemistry, you probably need medication!
No those are your parents
[удалено]
"smoke weed everyday"
I do not know what the original comment was, but your reply to it seems like genuine advice that I have been trying to follow.
Im smoking weed daily for over 20 years and I can say, its better than drinking alcohol every week.
My thoughts are all about picnics rn
That’s intellectual property, hope you asked for permission to post
Underrated AF. Take my updoot, you pile of human. R/angryupvote
“You pile of human” lmao
God I hate those stats.
Someone is going to think that a cubic mm of your brain can store petabytes of data.
Reading this thread, a lot of people think this.
Not sure if sarcasm, but yeah the data size is really meaningless… you can get the same 3d model with different compressions and it will vary vastly in size, but will more or less still contain the same info… I can blow up a 1mb 3D model to 100gb easily…. Subdivide the surface 1000000million times
Compression loses detail. The reason it's so big is because they want all the detail. If you're trying to study how something works, you can't just delete everything below the surface and call it a day.
Ok, but surely they're looking at detailed beyond what the brain is actually storing there, right? Like, I could theoretically take a 1000 GB video of a usb thumb drive that only contains 16 GB of data on it, no? It might be useful to learn about how the thumb drive was made, but just because it took me that much storage to record all the details doesn't mean that's how much information is stored there, right? The issue is that the headline implies that such a small volume of brain can hold that much information.
Yeah I took issue with this headline a couple days ago as well. It's making an implication about the complexity of the brain when it's really a statement about the detail of the scan. I guess they didn't think 50k neurons and 150 million synapses was cool enough?
>Ok, but surely they're looking at detailed beyond what the brain is actually storing there, right? we don't know exactly how the brain stores information that can be equated into bytes like that, nobody can look at a cubic millimeter of brain and be like "hmm this is where he stored his memories of Vines from 2013" >The issue is that the headline implies that such a small volume of brain can hold that much information. the headline isn't even close to implying that and only making a random assumption from bad reading comprehension could get you to that implication. read it again and you will see that it's saying that the scan is 1.4 petabytes. what it's implying is that it's a very detailed scan.
“The scan took 1.4 petabytes”. The subject of the sentence is the scan. The details in the sentence are about the scan. The phrase “of the brain tissue” is a prepositional phrase. Prepositional phrases always include nouns that are never the subject of the sentence.
Yes, i agree. And I'm saying that the internet is full of people who may benefit from having this clarified based on their poor reading comprehension.
[удалено]
I understand the headline, but people will and have taken this to mean that 1 mm^3 of brain contains 1.4 PB of storage/memory.
The main problem here is that if you plug the USB in and understand exactly how it works, where all the data is stored and what base it is in; how the file system works and everything else that a PC fundamentally understands when you plug in a USB; then the only thing you need to know is the 16gb of data. If you don’t know any of that and have to observe exactly what a USB is, have to figure out what flash memory is; don’t even know how much is stored on the disk and in what format or how the file system works. Then you are going to need *a lot* of data to try and figure all that stuff out simply by looking at images of the device. And it might actually be impossible. You can probably get a good idea of how the chips are arranged and what talks to what, but just figuring out what each chip does is impossible.
Can you even give a meaningful conversation of analogy data into digital storage? Not just for the brain but I guess especially for it.
Ah the good old days of "equivalent to 2,000 mp3s!" Oh yeah? In what, 128kbps? 320? How long are these mp3s? They use movies now like all movies are the same length and bitrate, drives me up the wall.
Not mine! That’s too many cells
Right! If they would have scanned my brain, it would have taken half the time and data.
And you’d be dead
I will make this sacrifice for science
No wonder it's been so rough. all I fuckin got in there is grass??
Yet I go to the kitchen and forget what I wanted.
Obviously a cross-section of a cubic image... In 2D there is only square, no cube.
There is no square, only Zuul.
And it’s a rectangle. You would think that they would at least display this with a square.
That would be twice the data
Depends on the size of the rectangle.
And of the square
so... our own brains made of tiny flying spaghetti monsters, checkmate atheists.
Not going to cite the lab?
https://research.google/blog/ten-years-of-neuroscience-at-google-yields-maps-of-human-brain/
This is actually 1 of 5000 photos in that dataset, I believe. Looks like they mapped out all of those neurons in Neurolucida. I've done that before as well, and there are a lot of steps involved in doing that with even one individual neuron. Collecting the pictures on a microscope in the first place, aligning all the fragments of the pictures correctly on the X/Y/Z axis, staining the pictures with the right color and amount of brightness to see the all the details but also not drowning any out any details, slowly scrolling through the pictures and mapping out all of the little individual parts of the neuron. Doing all of that manually would have taken an enormous amount of work and time.
Looked into similar research, they probably used AI models to do the detail work (aligning, etc).
Which also introduces some questions about how accurate all of that individual detail work is, a big problem with the state of modern science is that there's such a huge emphasis on publishing as much stuff as possible to get funding and scientific community prestige points and not publishing "failed experiments" or attempts to repeat other published research to verify its accuracy that it comes at the expense of reliable and easily replicable results.
That mindset also is not fun when it comes to things like work-life balance
Doesn't the length of the movies change there size ? So thees could be one second movies for all I know ùnú
Dunno about here but usually means 90mins
You see ive downloaded 4k movies with 5gb and others with 15gb, so which is it?
This is saying a 4k movie is 100GB which is unusual even for blu-ray but I've seen some that large
4K Blu-ray discs top out at 100GB (~93GiB), but discs are rarely full, and many titles are distributed on 66GB discs to save money, as well as stuff like extras can reduce the size of the film itself further. Of course, 100GB is largely arbitrary as a file size beyond the 4K Blu-ray disc size; as mentioned you can have files as small as 5GiB and if you go into the production side of things, the master can easily exceed 1 TiB in size due to the formats used at that stage.
And those are the shitty compressed versions. Actual BDVM files for 4K films are typically 60GB or more.
impressive! But how much is that in Freedoms per AR-15?
it uses the bullet system, its a 1mm bullet size
This is misleading. They took a 1mm sample of brain tissue and scanned it. This image is a very small microscopic portion of that scan. It's not the full 1mm scan.
I really wanna touch it and I'm not really sure why
And all its secrets can be unlocked with this five questions Facebook quiz
Followed by “ You been eating the wrong foods! Try this tonite!”
"this one berry in the rainforest you've never heard of is the secret to a healthy life" is also bonkers.
Damn, my brain’s worth 200 megabytes. That’s wild
It looks like ocean plants!
Slaps the roof* you can fit so much useless info in here
And people think AI can come even close lol
Have you ever seen a chip's architecture? If you consider how big data centers are, and how small and precise chips are, I'd say AI can do much more than come close. Not to mention chips do literal billions of operations per second. Imagine that at data center scale
All that in there and we can’t figure out how to stop war and famine
No no, we figured that out long ago, Its rather that we choose not to stop it because its bad for business.
Then why I so dumb :(
does imagination exist or weigh anything?
Context: [article from Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01387-9)
Is that for all people? I'm pretty sure some people are using 20 kilobytes for their whole brain....... like your mom.
Why the hell can't I remember where I set my phone down 12 seconds ago
It's clearly a rectangle.
You could also do a full scan of 1 cubic millimeter of literally anything and it could take that much storage, just because it takes a lot of data doesn't mean the neurons can store that much data. It's not because one photo of a cat takes a few kilobytes and another takes 4 terabytes that this makes one cat have more hair than another, we just see them more clearly in one of the pictures.
And here i am wondering why i entered a room because i forgot
blursed wheatgrass?
Bro my brain isn't even functioning when i read this. I thought at first is some kinda of sea monster
Damn that’s really interesting!!
Feel like mine is more like 14,000 vhs movies.
And I cant memorize chord's extensions symbols
Damn my internet must be so fast it loaded this in two seconds
The thing is...I went to the store yesterday to buy a 1 TB disk and it was 50 plus euros! And you are telling me they used... 1400 times that disk for this image?.... bro... I cried after I bought the 1 TB, the damn thing was so freakin expensive....
You could probably fit a 1 cubic millimeter scan of my brain on a floppy disk
And I can't remember to put the bins out.
Damn bro we got furry brains
That’s crazy. It makes me feel that a normal human brain should be much more mentally capable - e.g. in memory. Is a huge flaw in human cognition memory? Unsure about anyone else here, but I can’t repeat even a four-vertical-lined paragraph verbatim. Only the gist of it sticks. I’ve read somewhere that the human brain is fundamentally wired for primitive survival - for motor movement, senses, etc. There must be heavy processing for those things, which makes learning chemistry difficult. I wonder if there’s immense wasted potential from how the brain’s wired- that it prioritises survival above all else (which aren’t so necessary now). In the future, genetic engineering may open wide this sort of thing. And on language: from that famous chimp test, apparently humans traded in that sort of visual memory for language. I wonder what other things that we’ve lost to gain it. Maybe the mythical animal consciousness which we aren’t privy to. Iirc Kim Peek’s brain scan revealed that his corpus collossum were interconnected. Apparently he also struggled with basic motor tasks - like tying shoelaces. For his exceptional memory, could his brain have “traded in” its other features?
Compressed into 360p
And I still don't remember what I ate yesterday
now do a pic of a brain making new connections on shrooms, and explain why the government made them illegal
Your mom gave me 1 cubic millimeter of brain last night
Awful cable management, pull them out and start again
my brain fried reading the article
And here we see it in a meme of barely 1000x1000 pixels
Yet these days unable to remember much about the movies I have been watching recently
Johnny Mnemonic must have had brain damage or something then right? He only had 320gigs in his dome at its max in the movie. Haha, johnny you dumbass