But that's a problem which only appeared when UPS systems and large battery storage grew beyond a certain threshold. For a long time, it was fine to have the system checking the battery every minute, because not many battery systems were deployed to begin with and even less were constantly online and synchronized via NTP. And at some point in time, a single battery was added which was the last straw to break the camel's back.

Map of agricultural production changes in the nuclear winter following a minor nuclear exchange, posted for no particular reason.

(For a full-scale exchange...)

Also, for no particular reason, a map of Russia's population distribution, alongside a reminder of Russia's nuclear missile failure rate, particularly booster failures. And that nuclear warheads have been commonly lost disturbingly often even during peacetime, with at least seven weapons from four incidents lost in flight landing in a way that left them fully intact and easily reparable, just from the US alone. And that Ukraine is rich in nuclear engineers, including still some retirees who worked in the Soviet nuclear weapons programme.

There's also this myth that "if you just use a nuclear weapon, you automatically win the war". Nuclear weapons are immensely effective terror weapons, but their effectiveness on the front is a lot weaker than most people think. People on frontlines tend to be in trenches, bunkers, basements, armoured vehicles, etc, and can be surprisingly close to a tactical nuclear blast while still surviving. They're effective against hard points but struggle against a broad, diffuse front (aka, today's front, which is a sparsely populated, deep, amorphous zone, thanks to drones). Amortizing Russia's estimated budget for tactical nuclear weapons comes up with ~$15-25M per weapon (not counting the delivery system), so they're hardly a dime a dozen either.

IF, via terror bombing or threats of terror bombing, you can convince your enemy to surrender, then congratulations, you have won (enjoy your nuclear waste heap and restive population who wants nothing more than to kill you). If they do not, however, their only goal remaining will be to focus 100% on using their extensive nuclear waste supplies rich in plutonium, their extensive long-range strike weapon supplies, and their extensive metallurgical experience, to render your major cities to ash in the same way that you did theirs.

(I also just assume herein that Ukraine doesn't actually have a secret nuclear weapons programme already, which is certainly an assumption).

I look forward to the unplanned broadcast of Swan Lake.

Slight difference here, what the Obama administration subpoenaed was call records: what number called, and how long the call lasted, which does not include the content of the conversation . What is to be seized here was the actual messages. It was widely criticized at the time.

-- also, 18 months is a much larger window to search than two months. It's hard to see that asking for 18 months worth of records is a search for one identified leak.

Your logic doesn't close.

Indeed you're right, flat environments are easier for legged locomotion. But they are essential for wheeled locomotion.

Legs work in flat and non-flat surfaces. Wheels work poorly in non-flat surfaces. Wheels lose in most locations that aren't engineered by humans to be usable for wheeled locomotion.

In an attempt to add context to what appears to be an inflammatory comment, here's some background:

Some time ago the US Department of Defense asked Musk to turn off starlink access in the Crimean peninsula. Although officially a Ukranian territory and not recognized as part of Russia, it made sense to do this due to the Russian occupation. Some Ukranian drones stopped working, and Musk steadfastly refused to allow his civilian system to be used to kill people.

Due to fallout from that incident, starlink satellite access was divided into two parts: Starlink and Starshield, both using Musk's satellites.

The explicit intent behind Starshield was to separate civilian and military uses of the satellite constellation. Under this framework:

"Starlink" is the regular user system, and it's TOS require that it not be used for military purposes. Basically, it's an ISP saying that you cannot use their system to kill people. Elon Musk is responsible for overseeing how Starlink is run and managed.

"Starshield" is the military version, and this is OK to use this as a weapon. The US Department of War (used to be "defense") controls who uses this and how it is used, they allow Ukraine to use it for battle, and they disallow Russia to use it for any purpose.

It was noticed that the Russians were stealing starlink endpoints and using them to attack Ukraine, so a "fast moving" detection was implemented to put a stop to this. As a byproduct, some Ukraine drones stopped working as well.

The Ukranians have access to starshield, the military version, and should have been using this instead of starlink.

Yes, he made the civilian version of starlink not work for drones, but this same change protected Ukraine from Russian drones using starlink.

Some people like to find reasons to criticize Musk.

I have no idea who was behind it - but yes, Iran is "annoyed" at France - because for a long time, it was France who was blocking adding IRGC to the EU's terrorists organisation list.

Although, if that is the cause then Iran didn't think it through properly, because what they've achieved is France being even more willing to impose sanctions on Iran.

Something happened in January 2026 that significantly changed France's position towards Iran. It's not obvious from what I've seen in the news whether it was just because they were becoming more and more isolated on their stance - both Spain and Italy had shifted their positions earlier - or there's something else going on - because France seems to have switched from "it needs more discussion" to "add them to the list" in about a week!?

I wonder if the copycat crimes after the original France supermarket hack are unrelated "lone wolf" type attacks now the vulnerability is exposed or they're ongoing attacks from the same source.

It's a little more subtle. Fructose tastes sweeter than Glucose. Per serving you need less fructose for the same sweet taste, so you can label the food with lower calorie numbers. At the same time, fructose does not appeases the hunger as much, so people tend to eat more. But because the actual sugar in the blood stream is higher than the pancreatic system believes it to be, it throws the body off and causes it to become more and more accustomed to higher blood sugar levels, increasing the chance for diabetes 2.

To the contrary. In most locations legs are better.

We're just accustomed to environments that have been reshaped for humans: rooms with flat floors, outdoor locations with roads and walkways, wheelchair ramps so people can get up the steps.

They were implied as being able to fly earlier, but the one you're thinking of, the first time they actually were shown on screen flying, is "Remembrance of the Daleks":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

To be clear: you can still totally argue about qualia, sentience, things of that nature. What is not up for debate is that they work through unimaginably-complex chains of logical reasoning on superpositions of conceptual states and engage in forward-planning and metacognition. These are just demonstrable facts.

There is no 'sentiment' in an LLM or internal state equivalent to 'thinking' anything.

Yes, there is.

Non-glucose sugars are really to blame here. As the pancreas reacts to glucose only and not to fructose, lactose, galactose and all the other sugars out there, high fructose corn syrup was a method to smuggle sugars beyond the appetite controlling system.

To me, that is basically an acoustic Stockholm syndrome. Motorcycles with their open engines are necessarily very loud to the rider. Like the hostages start to love their captor, motorcycle riders start to love the sound to cope with the fact that they can't flee it.

No, it's called "Evidencing The Fact That It's A Widespread Shorthand" (in specific, among Wikipedians, where it's in official terminology as well), a widespread usage that was falsely claimed to not exist.

(I'll also take this opportunity to note: rage about the use of shorthand on "copyvio", but not a word about "algos")