Lucky we got an anonymous tipoff
- the police.

You already proved you didn't know the relevant laws or even the basic geography of the region. Why are you still bothering?

Either Iran is bound by the treaty. In which case " all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded". Like I already explained to you.

Or Iran is not bound by the treaty. In which case Iran doesn't have a 12 mile territorial water but the previous 3 mile one from the previous treaties.

Either way, the Strait of Hormuz is wider than 12 miles (which is also wider than 3 miles in case you were wondering) So even in your fantasy where Iran gets to pick and choose what parts of the convention it wants to follow, it doesn't have enough territorial water to cover the whole strait. The transit passage that ships mostly use is inside Oman's territorial waters. What nonsense makes you think Iran should get a say?

Oh. So you admit you were wrong all along. And Iran is just trying to steal/terrorize the strait militarily, outside of any law.

Even if Iran and Oman teamed up and attempted to extort access to the Strait together. Everyone would tell them to fuck off as " all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded".

Notice that Iran isn't one of those countries, and so only has a 3 mile territorial water...covering even less of the Strait...
(you did at least check the geography of the region didn't you?)

It's one or the other.
Iran is subject to the treaty or it isn't.
Either way, they don't get to decide who travels through the strait.

You are completely ignorant of maritime law. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Part III

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

Iran has no right to disrupt regular shipping traversing the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's territorial waters don't even cover the whole strait. So you're also ignorant of geography in the region.
The main shipping lanes are in Oman's territorial waters for example.

That deal would expire in 2030. Iran is free to withdraw from the NPT and makes nukes any time after.

Is it your gamble to take?

You just mentioned their tendency to want to "die for their cause". And their cause just happens to be bringing about the end times... 2 birds 1 stone.

Well you certainly don't let them develop nukes...

Just get your Chinese AI on your Chinese device to auto-translate it.

It could be. But goes against the evidence from their experiment.
Both groups were submerged in 3cm of water...

You did at least read the summary right?

Across a series of experiments, the researchers submerged nearly 8,000 rice seeds in shallow tubs of water, at a depth of around 3 centimeters (1 inch)

Now's the time to put those trillion dollars fines for copyright infringement laws to good use.
If Zuck personally authorized it...

What are you on about?
The only people that lost money were the ones who had the wrong expectations about the future of the company.
It's the system working as intended.

People who expected the company to do X bid up the price to reflect X being done/true.
People who didn't think/expect that didn't buy it. Or sold it once they realized their expectations were wrong.

Only people who lost money were the ones with the incorrect expectation. As intended.

How was the company hurt? They didn't perform to what was expected of them. If they had the price wouldn't have gone down.
Sure people may have had unrealistic expectations of the company. How does that hurt the company though? If the expectations were more realistic the price would never have gone so high in the first place. The result is the same.
(In reality, people in the company would have known the expectations were unrealistic and sold for a profit before it was confirmed to everyone else. That's only a good thing for the people in company) or (the company itself could have raised additional capital at the unrealistic valuations, also good for the company)

That's where the original parent is also misunderstanding. The current price isn't because the company "did good" or "failed". It's only concerned with meeting whatever expectations the investors already had for the future when they bought the shares.
Unrealistic expectations mean an unrealistic price.
The same thing happens the other way. If everyone expected X but they did 2X the price would go up. I'm assuming you'd have no problem with that? So how is it not the same?

Seems like obvious common sense.
You thought they would make X dollars. But now they're only going to make 1/2 X
You wouldn't think the old valuation was too high?
Why even have an expectation if you're not going to change your strategy when it's wrong?

Do you know what didn't evolve to thrive with 20x the CO2?
It's humans.

I'll vote to keep the climate tolerable for humans. Plants seem to be doing ok. And as you've just mentioned, they've had tens of millions of years to evolve and adapt to the current environment.

There'd be nothing mutual about it if America wanted to completely destroy Iran.

You could have just looked it up