Then the hypothetical, what if it were true that the people attempting to harm your society singularly visually differed? Would that be racism, some strange "justified racism" or simply not racism? If you say, we are not prosecuting on race, but on propensity to crime. Well that starts to sound like some things I've heard in my country, which we believe is racist. Interesting questions.

Power failures, parked cars, loose animals, strange kids, balloons, weather, etc.

First thing to many occur to especially older folks watching news is illegal immigrant running ie from busted police operation, not some epic runner. They definitely dont recognize running sportswear.

It became a Russian colonial possession around that time. But that did not in any way establish an innate "Russian-ness" to the peninusla that overrides modern international law. Specifically multiple treaties affirming Ukraine's sovereignty over the Crimea that Russia itself signed (and which the Crimean electorate also ratified in 1991 via an internationally recognized referendum). And which Russia again affirmed via another major treaty in 1994.

Russia has a much stronger claim on Crimea than Ukraine, historically speaking.

You can believe you want about historical "claims" and whatever they are supposed to even mean. The vastly bigger point (and the only point that really matters in this context) is that in the 21st century, we don't go around starting wars that will inevitably murder hundreds of thousands of people so at one side can get a shot at "correcting" past border resolutions (that it never formally disputed in the first place).

There is a name for this tendency - "territorial revanchism". You might want to look at what happened the last time a major power in Europe started to pretend to believe that it had a historical imperative to avenge and reverse prior "humiliations":

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

The Ukraine side has fascists of their own

As does your country, I'm sure. That doesn't mean that other countries get to start invading and bombing your hometown willy-nilly. And if they did, I somehow doubt you'd be getting on HN to tell us that "It isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. After all, we've got fascists of our own in this country. So the invaders have a point too, you know."

This entire conflict is based on overlapping and often contradictory versions of history.

The history really isn't that complicated, and the whole idea that the conflict is in any way based on "history" is part of the fabric of myths used by the aggressor to justify its invasion and to mollify and deflect opposition to it.

The war is about the ideology and interests of the small clique that runs Russia's current regime. Not about Ukraine or its history.

> Other studies also have confirmed the long-term adverse effects on myocardial structure (18,27–30,32), including one study suggesting that the CAD event rate during 2-year follow-up was significantly higher in the athletes than that in controls

> Recent studies have suggested that long distance runners may have increased levels of atherosclerosis and CAD (18,37). In a study 6 years ago, male marathon runners had paradoxically increased coronary artery calcification (CAC) as measured by computed tomography (CT) CAC scoring (21). A very recent study of men who completed at least one marathon yearly for 25 consecutive years (n = 50) compared with 23 sedentary controls demonstrated increased total plaque volume (P < 0.01), calcified plaque volume (P < 0.0001), and noncalcified plaque volume (P = 0.04) compared with those with EEE (Fig. 3) (37). Despite the fact that runners have better overall CAD risk profiles, these results underscore the potential for very heavy EEE to increase the severity of CAD through mechanisms largely independent of the traditional CAD risk factors.

> Very high doses of running, however, were associated with trends of worse survival compared with either nonrunners or groups of low- and moderate-dose runners.

> However, when dividing runners into quintiles of doses (miles·wk−1, running days per week, min·wk−1, and running speed), with the exception of speed (faster running always had a trend for better survival), quintile 1 (<6 miles·wk−1, 1 to 2 times per week, <51 min·wk−1) had similar mortality reductions as those in quintiles 2 to 4 and a trend to slightly greater benefit than those in quintile 5 (Fig. 4).

There are other studies that have not shown long-term adverse events. The evidence isn't conclusive and most people need more exercise, not less. But it's prudent to caution committed runners about overdoing it with this information so they can make their own informed decision.