That might have been the goal rather then the actual military turn around, a PR stunt, given the news coverage as can be inferred from the allusions in other comments.
Fast compilation is a worth goal, but it's not fundamentally different from optimizing other kinds of programs: it involves good selection of data structures and algorithms, smart caching, that sort of stuff.
Compiler optimization (in the sense of optimizing the emitted code) is a research area of its own with millions of man hours invested.
One episode of psychosis is not a life long psychotic illness.
When people say "psychedelics cause mental illness" that could mean:
* Someone with no underlying mental illness takes a few doses of LSD and is left with a life long psychotic illness
* Someone with no underlying mental illness regularly takes huge doses of LSD, and ends up with a life long psychotic illness
* Someone with underlying mental illness has that illness surfaced by LSD use, when it would have gone un-known if they hadn't taken psychedelics
* Someone with underlying mental illness has that illness surfaced by LSD. But it probably would have happened anyway.
* Someone with mental illness has that illness temporarily triggered by LSD.
Because LSD is illegal and it's very hard to research we don't know much about the interactions of LSD and mental illness.
While I'm strongly pro-legalisation I do find it problematic when people dismiss any possible harms of drug use, when it's fine to say we don't know, but should legalise anyway.
What if doctors could prescribe drugs for recreational reasons? Then you are getting them from a setting where can be informed about the dangers, and a professional can tell you if you have personal risk factors (for example, I have a friend with a heart condition who is at very high risk of heart attack under the influence of cocaine).
And then the professionals can help measure dependency and long term effects, and people can participate in studies and contribute to the science of recreational drug use. Drugs are always medical grade, never laced with other substances, and doctors can recommend safe alternatives to the dangerous recreational drugs.
Power dynamics between a doctor and an addict may pose ethical problems, but if the doctor has the proper oversight these problems can be mitigated.
No, doctors should have less power. It's absolutely embarrassing and disgusting that individuals must seek approval of another person just to get permission to buy certain medicines. Outside of things that require coordination (like antibiotics), there should be no prescription requirements. (There may need to be waivers and a statement of understanding before purchasing things, sure.)
Doctors already regulate recreational and personal-enhancement via their strangehold on opiates and stimulants. We don't need to further this system.
Yes, but the dividing criteria is completely arbitrary. The medical term would be chronic. To me psychosis means a form of mental illness, so it looks like the GP doesn't have a clue.
Thats like saying heart palpitations is an illness and therefore when someone takes a large dose of cocaine and gets an irregular heartbeat, they have a heart problem.
Any definition you're thinking of that places any psychotic episode as a definite indicator of mental illness is completely irrelevant as soon as the subject is under the influence of a mind-altering drug.
That might have been the goal rather then the actual military turn around, a PR stunt, given the news coverage as can be inferred from the allusions in other comments.