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.

Perhaps that's an acceptable cost of avoiding higher gas prices right now - except Iran would have had the capacity to decide these at will. It's a fair choice, but best to be aware of the consequences.

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.