valec

Ok, then sell it as a service. Say $3/mo.

even knn after dimensionality reduction does pretty good

Newsflash---stimulants are prone to give people stimulant psychosis. Rising meth usage leads to rising psychosis. Again, with cartel meth approaching 98+% purity, the synthetic pathway doesn't really matter much anymore.

This is a terrible comparison. Meth[amphetamine] and Adderall [amphetamine] are extremely similar. Both act as triple monoamine releasers, releasing the most norepinephrine followed by dopamine followed by serotonin.

The methyl group attached to the amine basically just helps it cross the blood brain barrier better and makes it more resistant to enzymatic destruction. This means it is a couple times more potent dose-per-dose and lasts longer. It's nothing like the difference between methanol and ethanol, where one will kill you and the other is fine to drink. That IMO a rationalization people with ADHD make to convince themselves their prescribed amphetamines are somehow qualitatively different than big scary meth--just like the rationalization that amphetamine acts magically different in people with ADHD (it calms everyone down in low doses, it just might not provide the same working-memory deficit correcting effects as there is no deficit). In fact, in most of Europe, amphetamine itself is what you find on the streets, not meth.

This article is peak scaremongering. At this point, cartel meth is approaching 98% purity. Given sufficient purity, it doesn't matter the synthetic pathway as the end result is the same.

This comparison is completely nonsensical.

Ok, but lisdexamphetamine (Vyvanse) and meth end up very similar in terms of pharmacokinetics and effects.

they're cheaper than replacing a plane and especially its pilot I can assure you that

> This is why there are decoy flares.

..are you serious. chaff/flare is a last-ditch countermeasure for when the missile is completely depleted of energy for final evasive maneuvers, not a first line of defense after a modern missile. against a manpaad there's a higher success rate but even then it's not 100%.

> Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised.

are you under the impression the f-35 is going on strafing runs???

> Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire.

...

> Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.

i'm not sure how to even respond to this

The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill.

> How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits?

the point of the F-35 is that it is less likely to take these hits (hits which would destroy both planes) in the first place

> there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.

exactly, so in a COIN scenario the super-tucano, which has a tenth of the A-10's operating cost and longer loiter time, is the better choice

Copying this comment directly from a previous discussion:

The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than none at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater). The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost. Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.

self-supervised is a better term

Disheartening that this received both little attention and mostly callous replies.

Now the problem is it's impossible to get internships.

is she bipolar by any chance? if not, does she have a family history of bipolar or schizophrenia? or, does she have any cluster-b personality disorders?

activity levels almost certainly. uni it's not impossible you were walking over 12k steps a day. that's 3-400 calories over the average american's daily steps of 4000.

> There's a reason (healthy) seniors tend to be on the skinny side.

and the healthier ones are similarly lean but more muscular.

also, while caloric needs drop, protein needs rise as older people show blunted anabolic responses to protein and thus need more protein to maximize muscle protein synthesis

what, ~50g? that's barely the RDA. hardly enough to build muscle. there are almost linear gains up to 100g for most people, with further potential growth gains to be had up until around 130g.

2 eggs = 12g 2 sausages = 14g 2 handfuls nuts = 14g 1 cup beans = 12g

> Hard lessons from the GWOT which must be unlearned for an neer-peer engagement.

and again, a turboprop light attack aircraft armed with smart bombs can play a similar role as an A10 for CAS but significantly cheaper and with a longer loiter-time to boot.

The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than non at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater).

The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost.

Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.

with "half a litter of veg soup plus 2 eggs plus 2 sausages, some bread, some nuts" you likely have a borderline underweight BMI and little-to-no muscle to speak of.

muscle is extremely important for maintaining mobility and independence as you age. with this diet, even with training, it will be impossible to build any. past 30, without outside intervention, humans lose around 10% of muscle mass per decade. what happens when you're 70 and can barely walk after losing what little muscle you have? best have a reserve...

it's even sillier. LSD is derived from very small modifications to compounds produced by the ergot fungus. and certain synthetic psilocin analogues like 4-ho-met and 4-aco-dmt have few if any meaningful differences to psilocin itself (aka 4-ho-dmt)

> We've known for a long time now that messing with GABA is never a good idea.

certain bipolar and epilepsy drugs would disagree with that statement.

oftentimes if there is a difference in this sort of situation, it's preferring to bind to a specific subtype of receptor (GABAa is made of 5 different subunits which can be alpha, beta, gamma (or one of 16 other proteibs). the combo of which units are expressed determines the subtype). usually, receptor subtypes are expressed differently throughout the brain.

this is (probably) why benzos and z-drugs have qualitative differences for example--they act on different neurons as they have varying affinities to GABAa subtypes

aside from Gymnopilus junonius, the rest appear to be anticholinergics which aren't very interesting or rare. think less magic mushroom and more benadryl overdose

no, I didn't. it was approved by both FDA and EU regulatory agencies, and, assuming similar carcinogenicity, would be a much better option considering it's 50x as potent as a sweetener. in other words, less cancer per unit sweet.

and there's no reason to believe this potency as a sweetener (how strong it binds to and activates very specific gpcrs on tongue) correlates to carcinogenicity

...there are none. you could argue residual solvent but FDA would not allow that, and depending on the industrial process this would be a concern with caffeine extracted from "natural" processes as well

why has neotame not been pursued? if aspartame is carcinogenic, seems logical to switch to an extremely similar but out-of-patent compound 50x as sweet with an identical flavor-profile.

this works perfectly, thanks! this works for other websites as well. ie, it will ignore site:reddit.com for me but work fine with site:www.reddit.com. kind of an annoying A/B test, i'm not sure I see the point

ok, but if 10,000 people go to the train station and 2 get mugged instead of 1 at the bus stop, is it not fair to say it's still pretty safe?