I admit I've had the privilege of not following the war between Russia/Ukraine very closely, but your question seems to assume that Russia has been clearly delineating between civilian and military targets. "UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases : Russian Attacks in Ukraine Show ‘Clear’ Pattern of Targeting Civilians, UN Officials Stress, as Security Council Speakers Call for Urgent De-escalation" [1] from Jul 9, 2026 suggests that is not the case and claims "16,402 civilians, including 802 children, have been killed in Ukraine"
Based on what another user said, you might want to modify the above command to use throwawayUsername@late.sh instead if you are going the throwaway route to be more certain you aren't leaking your OS username.
This is helpful to know, but also pretty general security practice. If you are auditing an artifact, only use that audited artifact after, don't assume that a network endpoint can never change what it serves. If you must use a newly downloaded artifact, verify it matches whatever you audited by comparing some sort of hash or derived value.
> In fact it takes positive energy just told a weight at a fixed height, doing zero mechanical work!
Stacking a weight on top of a table holds it at a fixed height and requires zero mechanical work.
The failure in intuition here relates to physiology and the mechanism by which muscles work, not physics. Myosin and actin are constantly cycling through bonding and release during muscle contraction, as this is how the shortening action actually occurs. In fact, muscle contraction is particularly unintuitive because people frequently consider ATP the "energy currency", yet the ATP-consuming steps are actually the release/relaxation and preparation for binding, not the pulling action. This is also why the phenomena of rigor mortis upon death occurs.
I get that involving a human body complicates the analysis. That was the point: that you can’t appeal to it as a simple example to ground the intuition in other case.
Also:
>Stacking a weight on top of a table holds it at a fixed height and requires zero mechanical work.
I was referring to a human holding it. What would have been a better way to keep you from missing that?
> I get that involving a human body complicates the analysis. That was the point: that you can’t appeal to it as a simple example to ground the intuition in other case.
Yeah, fair enough. It's unfortunate that the comment you were responding to involved "caloric intake" suggestive of a biological system when it could just as easily have involved a mechanical pulley. Their intuition would have been stronger phrased as: Within a gravitational field that is approximated as a uniform force field, the amount of energy/work to raise a weight by a fixed distance is independent of the initial position of that weight on a (massless) rope attached to a (frictionless) pulley.
> I was referring to a human holding it. What would have been a better way to keep you from missing that?
Since you are asking, for me, it would helped to have the following inserted text: "In fact it takes positive energy [for biological muscle] just told a weight at a fixed height, doing zero mechanical work!" so that the statement stood on it's own, or else including within your post a more definitive statement to the effect of "intuitions involving the human body complicates the analysis", as you did in this reply. If "that was the point", go ahead and state it.
To be fair, I often have the same problem. It's easy for me to write a lot of text that goes around a statement without actually getting to it.
Because they were more focused on the stills than the movie.
IOW, a screenshot when you scroll it to the "right" spot looks clean and balanced. Personally, I think it's a bad UX decision, but also easy to scroll past once you know.
slop is such a poorly defined term that it's very hard to answer your question meaningfully. Is all code generated by AI slop? Many different opinions on this and questions to be answered as LLMs continue to shift the programming landscape.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a feature when the viewer controls the number of spaces per tab, it's a bug when someone else does (as is often the case online via css `tab-size`).
[1] https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16408.doc.htm