“shouldn’t exist”? More like, “we don’t know how they are formed (yet)”.

I guess the issue would be that there shouldn’t have been enough time to form two black holes that large and have them meet by collisions. So either black holes are more common than thought, or there are other ways for them to form.

So, without the shift in fuel the emissions would be 2% higher? Why is that not a good thing?

Yes, we want total emissions lower, but without the efuel emissions would have been even higher.

Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily “we might reconsider our stance on troop mines”. Rather it is: “we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation”. Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.

Oh, it wasn’t the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That’s why it was sent publicly…