Heaviside Industries Emerges From Stealth With $28M Series A Funding 76%

By David Nusbaum0%

6/26/2026, 4:45:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Confirmation Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 44.8% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 1,631 faulty-reasoning hits from 315 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.8% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,165 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.60% of the article peer group.

Heaviside Industries, a California-based defense technology company that develops autonomous precision munitions and systems for air, land, and sea operations, has emerged from stealth with a $28 million Series A fundraising led by Interlagos with participation from Menlo Ventures, Flume Ventures, Cantos, Anorak Ventures, and other Partners. 
The new funding will support the expansion of its engineering and manufacturing capabilities and accelerate product development. 
“This Series A fundraise allows us to accelerate the deployment of Heaviside’s autonomous munitions platforms to a broad base of our established customers,” said Phillip Walker, chief executive of Heaviside, in a statement. 
“With this capital, we will further the adoption of Heaviside’s technology by warfighters.” 
Operating in stealth for more than two years since its founding in 2024, Heaviside has established a team of over 50 engineers and operators across offices in Los Angeles and Oslo, Norway, as well as a roster of U.S. and allied customers. 
Heaviside builds precision munitions that are designed to operate even in jammed and GPS-denied environments without inflating costs or sacrificing performance, fundamentally shifting the dynamics of modern warfare to defeat high-value enemy military assets and infrastructure at a far lower cost and with markedly reduced collateral damage. 
“American defense is overdue for reinvigoration and modernizing it requires large-scale manufacturing and precise, affordable capability at operational scale,” said Matt Kraning, a partner at Menlo Ventures, in a statement. 
“Heaviside has put both under one roof for the first time with the engineers behind the most successful miniaturized military UAS ever fielded, a manufacturing program that has shipped tens of thousands of systems to the U.S. and our allies, and a guidance group with over 100,000 flight hours in contested environments. 
That depth is why we invested and why Heaviside will define this generation of American defense.” 
Information for this article was sourced from Heaviside. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 34.6%David Nusbaum: 5.2%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias34.6%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%David Nusbaum: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic31.4%This article: 13.3%David Nusbaum: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic13.3%This article: 5.1%David Nusbaum: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias5.1%This article: 5.1%David Nusbaum: 4.7%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias5.1%This article: 18.1%David Nusbaum: 7.5%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 24.4%David Nusbaum: 16.2%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias24.4%This article: 9.5%David Nusbaum: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias9.5%This article: 14.9%David Nusbaum: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias14.9%This article: 19.7%David Nusbaum: 8.6%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias19.7%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 44.8%David Nusbaum: 14.4%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect44.8%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%David Nusbaum: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.0%David Nusbaum: 13.1%Daily Pilot: 5.0%Appeal to Authority26.0%This article: 9.5%David Nusbaum: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma9.5%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 31.4%David Nusbaum: 11.4%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization31.4%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.1%David Nusbaum: 4.7%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.1%David Nusbaum: 4.6%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.1%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 14.9%David Nusbaum: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division14.9%This article: 14.9%David Nusbaum: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal14.9%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 29.8%David Nusbaum: 4.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)29.8%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.5%David Nusbaum: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote10.5%This article: 31.1%David Nusbaum: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection31.1%This article: 40.6%David Nusbaum: 11.7%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice40.6%This article: 18.7%David Nusbaum: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination18.7%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Nusbaum: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 36.8%David Nusbaum: 36.9%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…36.8%

315 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers46%attributed speech171writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coveragePhillip Walker • 33 words • 100.0% coveragePhillip Walker • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Kraning • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Kraning • 52 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Kraning • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matt Kraning

100%flagged-word coverage
98 attributed words68% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-49.2 ptsWriter: 65.5%Matt Kraning: 16.3%16.3%Quote-first Misdirection+53.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Matt Kraning: 53.1%53.1%Attempt to Sell a Product +15.6 ptsWriter: 37.4%Matt Kraning: 53.1%53.1%Indoctrination+46.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Matt Kraning: 46.9%46.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.