yyyk

IPv6 discussions keep having this scenario - which is barely relevant to how nearly all IPv4 LANs operate.

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.

TOS and TNG were sci-fi, even if many scripts varied. Given its time, you could have the classic and interesting tech and society questions there, even if they avoided a lot of the implications. But over time the franchise lost this key part, and so it's much worse for the wear. We could use an actually relevant sci-fi series given current tech.

Iran already could. All the pieces were there as well as the plan. It's that US & Israel attacked first. The same would have applied even worse for JCPOA extension scenario. Ultimately, so long as Iran is strong enough and radical enough, it will use its power on the strait next door.

They did in the late 80s and were crushed. Also talk of doing it was rife before this war.

>You don't think Iran would have renegotiated to extend it further?

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.

Right, that's why I wrote "a generic sorting algorithm". Your case adds the integer limit which allows it to avoid O(nlogn) minimum.

Galactic algorithms have such huge constants they figuratively need a galaxy-sized computer and/or galaxy-sized problem, to have any advantage over the normal solutions. Imagine a generic sorting algorithm in O(n) that had a constant of 10^92 **. Technically superior but in practice unusable.

** Yes, I know that's proven to be impossible.

>It also isn't nearly enough to make nukes

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.

The JCPOA enrichment limits would have started to expire this year, and soon Iran could have completely legally enriched as much as it wanted - while getting hundreds of billions via JCPOA sanctions removal. Given what it took to get Iran to this state under sanctions, it would have been impossible to force it to renew the limits or give up anything on nukes. We'd have ended up with Iranian control of Hormuz at the very least, likely of Gulf as well.

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.

The supply issues are a result of other foreign policy issues. Trying to do these directly would have been politically a total dead end, and without these issues would have led to increased investment in Russia and Gulf (it already does in the Americas and in Africa).

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.

This.

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.

Your examples are examples of cuts on the demand side. They satisfy current transport/electricity demand with a means that costs much less carbon, so fossil demand goes down.

(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).

CO2 emissions trading is greenwash. CO2 capture not necessarily so. It could be a useful tool, so long as it's not used as an excuse to launder other emissions.

Skynet won't have to bother launching a nuclear war. It will just sit and munch digital popcorn, waiting for humanity to fix the humanity 'problem'. A tiny speck of time in the fullness of things.