Oh cool! I hadn’t considered that. The crystallin and vitreous humor in the eye do indeed have a refractive index similar to water, so Cherenkov radiation happens at less than 1 MeV IIRC, so it comes down to how much light would actually be produced in such a small volume. It does seem perfectly feasible!

I get where you’re coming from, and I do feel like Chani really suffered from the adaptation, but I felt like it was more due to screentime and not having internal thoughts than changes made. I felt her being skeptical at the beginning was both a great change to her character (it feels like she falls in love with the Muad’dib Paul becomes, not the Atreides he was) and a really good way to carry themes of anti-messianism into the movie where the book relied on philosophical asides. It also provides a natural foil to Stilgar’s zeal and Jessica’s manipulation, presenting Chani as more aligned with Paul himself.

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe due to the very low refractive index of about 1.0003, particles need tremendous energy to produce Cherenkov radiation in atmosphere. So the demon core flashes (while perhaps some negligible part Cherenkov) were probably mostly just from the ionization of the air, and subsequent nitrogen/oxygen fluorescence.

If my awful phone math is right, you’d need about 21 MeV of energy for an electron to produce Cherenkov radiation. I think the processes producing energetic electrons here (Compton scattering, some pair production, photoelectric effect, internal conversion, delta rays, and Bremsstrahlung cascade I believe) should regularly produce energies around 10 MeV at most (from Compton).

The entire series is incredible, if you have the time. It really left an impression on me.

It isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, but you may find this interesting, and it’s a bit of an insight into the relationship between pretraining and fine tuning: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.10965

Yeah.

https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-missing-reasons.html

That basically just sounds like Mixture of Experts

For those curious, the “off” means “off premises” (or something like that, they may use a different wording), so a license for a store that can sell alcohol that must be taken elsewhere to be consumed, i.e. a liquor store or package store. The inverse is an “On-License”, a license to sell alcohol that may be consumed on premises, so things like bars, pubs, and restaurants.

Honestly if it works economically, I think this kind of infrastructure project should at least partially count towards NATO targets. Not all of war is moving troops, some of it is logistics, keeping your citizenry relatively happy, and an accumulated history of economic investment. If they can manage to get a lot of that money into workers’ hands, that alone is a huge benefit when combined with the transferrable skills you’re reinforcing in your workforce.

Not that we should have to justify infrastructure as military expenses. But I do think it kinda works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

In 2009, Congress increased it to $7.25 per hour with the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.

This is the normal way to talk about changes in deficits and surpluses in English, and it’s not ambiguous, although it may look that way initially. In everyday speech, a “deficit” already means a shortfall or a negative amount. When we say a “surging deficit,” we mean the size of that shortfall is increasing. We generally treat deficits as only positive or zero (never negative), and if it flips, we call it a “surplus” instead.