yyyk
It's assuming a huge zero-trust point-to-point network where it's a rare scenario for IPv4 LANs. IPv4 LANs tend to assume the internal network is semi-trusted and route through hubs, so merging networks is a bad idea even when the mapping does not conflict (which often doesn't if the companies are tiny like most are). Even in a zero-trust point-to-point environment you'd want to review the other side, convert it to your software, etc. And the people on the being acquired side have little reason to care too.
It's a scenario that's only relevant for a huge company constantly acquiring other companies that operates via zero-trust point-to-point networking and strongly tries to minimize human review - basically Google/Alphabet.
Why would Iran want to do it? Iran could absolutely control Hormuz* and get a nuke at will** under the deal. At that point it can avoid sanctions by threatening the Gulf. Or demand other concessions for allowing the Gulf to operate. That's what it tries to do now, but from a much weaker position compared to the deal timeline.
* Take the real life prewar Iranian missile and drone strength, assume Iran had an extra couple of hundreds of billions to pour into it, no import limits by the UN, a less restive populace, etc.
** Breakout timeline being a week at most at end of expiry timeline. Probably the only way to keep the Gulf independent at that scenario would have been nuclear deterrence.
>If not, why would they even bother to follow the agreement in the first place?
Because Iran wasn't anywhere strong enough at the time to risk a war, but the existence of the agreement and general developments would have predictably changed the power balance in its favor.
>The legality of what they do has never been a consideration
Well, if you decide something is legal, it's much tougher to change one's mind and stop it later.
** Yes, I know that's proven to be impossible.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2026/mcs2026-helium.pdf
Enrichment % is very misleading. Natural is about 0.7%. 3.5% is halfway to 90%. The distance from 60% to 90% is tiny.
That's because the distance is calculated using the quantity of raw material that needs to be filtered and not the enrichment percent, the more pure, the less material needed, hence smaller distance to 90%.
>Right, they could, and didn't. Why?
Some people worked hard to ensure the latter would be very inadvisable for Iran. Being so close isn't a stable equilibrium though.
I think in the long run Russia will recover its output if that war stops. China wants its resources too badly, especially if it gets into a fight with US. As for Iran that depends on how the war ends. Gulf likely returns to normal.
The one gripe I'll have is that rowlevel security is slow and messy to use. If a design allows skipping it, it should be skipped.
(By contrast, a supply cut is 'not developing new fossil resource cuz someone else will buy it and burn it', which is obviously a dead end).
Seriously now: Attempts to cut fossil fuel supply are worthless unless done en masse and in big scale - any single country doing it will just spur investment in another country. Since the world will not come to a truly binding agreement, the only thing that can be truly regulated is demand which can be regulated locally without necessarily increasing demand elsewhere.
The big new ticket is data centers, which strongly tend to use fossils due to SLAs and regulations. This can be fixed by new regulations, but only if people act now before the new approvals and builds are done.
It's more than that. Musk tried to back out and was forced in court to finish the deal to buy Twitter.
"I believe Web codecs should be purpose-built, efficient, and narrowly scoped to the needs of the Web.... [JPEG XL] is meant to be everything to everyone... Not to mention an additional compatibility headache now exists for anyone just trying to download an image from the Internet and use it somewhere"
Browsers aren't trying to be narrowly scoped anymore, nor made just for the web (Rust and LLMs must have improved their confidence regarding security). Other usecases (like PDFs and cameras) clearly benefit from JPEG XL. Once support was added, it was easy to just turn on for the web. After all, they need to consider the opposite case where someone creates a jxl image and tries to upload it to the Internet. They might even think that having a format that is everything to everyone is useful and eventually the (en)decorders will improve.
The problem is that it's not necessarily trivial to tell programs/pipelines/transforms to act only losslessly (there's definitely no common switch; Quality 100 is in fact still lossy in some encoders/formats). In practice some programs use the extension to realize what they should be doing.
* The versatility is a bit of a downside when it comes to lossless. Programs play games when it comes to formats mixing both and when may appear to be lossless isn't always thus. It would have been nicer if there was a direct way (via extension+mime) to indicate lossless is expected.
* JPEG transcoding is a very nice feature.
Also, Hamas literally operated the 'March of Return' (demanding the 'right of return') that year. The best implication of that 'accepting borders with Palestinian majority on both sides on them', which is just a funny way of taking all the land.
UN cannot allow UNRWA - since any actual operation would require Israeli cooperation given Israel is the only open border to Gaza - and Israel will not allow what it considers to be an extremist front.
UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have proven to be unable to restrain terrorist attacks, and proven to be unable to restrain the Israeli response.
'Israel to withdraw and grant all other Hamas demands' is a 'get out free' card.
> they tried to return 3 hostages to show good faith who the IDF proceeded to kill.
These hostages _escaped_ and were shot in error. Not 'tried to return'. Note that there was a week's ceasefire a month earlier and Hamas could have returned everyone then if they cared to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_war_ceasefire
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/israel-hostages-cam...
>Hamas, on multiple occasions, agreed to all the terms only for Israel to reject the terms.
You mean all of 'Hamas's terms'. Right. The Israeli government had very different terms as the final deal (very different from what Hamas demanded) shows. The Israeli gov insisted on controlling the Egyptian border, Gaza demilitarization, etc.
>It's why the hostage families became really mad at the government.
Of course. They wanted the hostages out ASAP, and could only pressure the Israeli government (obviously Hamas wouldn't care for the families).
>Two wrongs don't make a right
Right, but there's such a thing as hypocrisy. One could make a 'genocidal' case against the country who started a war by bombing a schoolhouse and spoke of 'destroying an entire civilization' (it would still be wrong though). But they're a little too strong, and it's easier to pick on Israel.
>That's what world leaders should have done.
Most world leaders want to be reelected (or not be overthrown if they're dictators). Sending out troops to die in a foreign land for an arguably hopeless cause is not very helpful to that end. They're likely aware of the history of military involvement in the Middle East.
>The likes of AIPAC and CUFI get around campaign finance restrictions because they are operated by US citizens
Qatar etc. gets around it by donating billions to US universities or using organizations like ISNA. Everyone seems to have found a way.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/uyqjn2/norman_fink...
Lie. It was a deal to get complete immunity for a massacre. Also, 'Civilian' per Hamas is anyone over 60. 'Let Hamas murder and keep nearly all hostages' was not in Israel's playbook.
>They reached out and were ignored.
Lie. There was repeated negotiations for two years after, with plenty of Hamas demands for the hostages. It was totally public too.
>As Israel started to show genocidal intent (for example, killing aide workers multiple times)
Literally not relevant. The US has much bigger errors in the current conflict.
>the UN should have deployed peace keepers
Snort. Look at how successful they were in Lebanon. Peace keepers need to be willing to fight to keep the peace, and in this case, it meant fighting both sides. LOL.
>our politicians are so bribed by Israeli lobby money
I suggest looking at the far bigger Qatari and Saudi expenditures (didn't they just grant an entire 747?). It's more that US politicians recall the war on terror, and know all this nonsense will one day be sent back at them with much greater force (wasn't it 4 million deaths or so?), they have no wish for the precedent to be set and deployed at them.
China (BYD etc.) definitely has the ability to produce the entire amount of cars Toyota sells. It's a totally different scale of threat - the result of Toyota (etc.) not reading the signs in time. Tesla gave them a warning they did not listen to.
Nobody needs more than 4.47 trillion characters. (famous last words)