But revenue is not really the informative quantity. If you sell gold you will have a huge revenue, but very little profit. I can be a trillion dollar company too if we exchange dollar bills for face value.
At altitude most AA is radar based, thus a lower RCS will help directly in not being seen. So you can get closer to the enemy you still can see because of the higher RCS. For BVR fights this is essential.
Those machines shouldn't be low level though. IR missles don't care about RCS. It is not their natural territory either.
Third that Cessna is not hidden either. From above (i.e. an AWACS) it can be seen very good. From the ground it can hide low and slow. But so can dedicated planes too, which is practised regularly.
Lithium is far from the drug with the highest amount of side effects among psych meds. Take the first generation antipsychotics for example. They are nasty.
As a matter of fact, lithium patients aren't much worse off when it comes to kidney function. Especially with modern levels of around 0.6 to 0.8 mmols.
Lithium has many modes of action, ion channels like you said, but also GSK3 function, BDNF changes and many more. It even changes the DNA methylation.
Lithium cures Bipolar the same way all the other psych meds do. They don't. They just manage symptoms. Like insulin does, or antihistamines, etc. A propper cure is rare in medicine.
There are so many misconceptions about lithium wrt to the human body.
I don't know why so many people differentiate between lithium orotate and the lithium carbonate in psychiatry. Although they differ in absorption the active component is the lithium ion in both cases. Dosage is done according to lithium content, there are tables for converting from orotate to carbonate and back.
Then the effects of lithium orotate and carbonate can't be that different. And thus, above a particular dose blood monitoring is mandatory.
There are benefits of low dose lithium for sure. And the dosages in psychiatry have been on a steady decline. With lower doses come less side effects. It is definitly not the hammer of psychiatry that turns people into zombies or messes. It feels quite natural.
In addition the reduction of Alzheimers cases is not unique to lithium. Many meds cause Alzheimers rates in mentally ill people to decline to general population levels.
In general mice need larger doses of most medication candidates. AFAIK this is because they have a faster metabolism compared to humans.
In addition I don't think there is a overdose risk with psychedelics.
Although I like the idea in principal, I don't see the real use case here.
Most of the examples can easily be replaced by pen and paper which is faster than building a app. More complex use cases require more complex solutions which I'm not sure this provides.
One use case could have been an application to study functions in time and frequency space. But does it provide an fft?
Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still.
Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well.
So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.
Water usage in humid regions is not a problem (and not nearly as efficient for cooling). Is a problem when consumption gets so high that ground water levels change or fossile ground water is used.
Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too.
I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas.
The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.
Indirectly yes. Instead of releasing additional carbon first into chemical products and then after they are waste into the atmosphere, the carbon is pulled out of the atmosphere first.
That is reasonable though. Comparing the product of a small company with little resources with giants like Google and OpenAI in a field where most advances are due to more and more expensive models is nonsense.
Thought so too. I don't know how it could be different though. They are competing against behemoths like OpenAI or Google, but have only 200 people. Even Anthropic has over 1000 people. DeepSeek has less than 200 people so the comparison seems fair.