I think the remark -while rude- brings up an important point: is the in-situ generated adhesive compatible with the paper recycling processes? if so, it seems that simply applying the discovered in-situ chemicals artificially would be faster and not rely on CO2 laser tube set-up (they don't last forever).

If it IS compatible with the later recycling steps, then what prevents us from simply applying a similar or simplified mix of chemicals generated by the CO2 laser treatment?

Suppose some adhesives already use the same or similar chemicals, the question would arise if you really discovered a compatible glue, or if you just discovered a proper dosage in your application? We can keep coming up with elegant research showing this or that is compatible with a certain recycling step, in the case that some players in industry use inappropriate amounts of glue, the problem would not be a lack of compatible glues but proper dosing, or tracing the manufacturer / end-users of the glue/paper combination that gunked up some recycling process.

> We deserve it for looking the other way while Israel has been mass murdering Palestinians for more than two years now.

The sad part is how the genocide in Gaza could have been prevented:

Imagine an alternate history, in which successive precedencies didn't turn a blind eye to Iran, imagine a decade ago (regardless of democrat or republican administration) that they decided to do what they are doing today in Iran. Iran wouldn't have had the funds and resources to sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah. The populations in Gaza and Lebanon wouldn't have been sandwiched between the projected powers of Israel and Iran. Their power structures could have been legitimate democracies etc. In that world there wouldn't have been a reason for Israel to attack and invade, and even if they did in this alternate history, the rest of the world would have strongly condemned it to the point of military intervention on behalf of Gaza / Lebanon.

Always take not how a faction has risen to power initially. In the case of Iran's regime it was hostage taking. A faction will very often resort to the same tactics and methods it used during its initial ascent to power, a form of survivorship bias.

If the West hadn't let the situation of Iran rot indefinitely for decades (they even systematically rewarded the regime's behavior by systematically giving in to the hostage politics it conducted, in my opinion they should have just drawn a line and said: return these hostages unconditionally or we treat this as hiding behind a human shield).

Like Iran placing a girls school on the grounds of a military base?

They had years and years to correct the open source maps and inform the world at large about the presence and location of the girls school, but didn't?

Imagine being a parent of such a child, being informed enough to understand what the regime aspires to (ballistic nuclear missiles), and what a large number of nuclear powers think about this. If you are that parent, would you be happy with your child being sent to a school on the grounds of a military base? They risk being the first casualties in war. Obviously, in this fun society of Iran, these parents had no choice, for if they did, they would insist their children go to a different school. The victims you complain about, are indeed victims, but first and foremost victims of Iran's regime, its against the statutes of Rome to use human shields.

A hotel is not a military target, a military complex is.

I do think international law is up for some modernization with regards to human shields etc. An improved law (that recognizes the existence of open source maps) could mandate every nation to mark the locations of schools etc.

If however you place the school as a human shield (war crime), and mark that shield on an open map, such international law should legitimize war unless a deadline to move the school is met.

If a military complex is not marked as having a childrens school, while in fact there is, then its a war crime too.

Then there will be no silly forum discussions on who's fault these casualties are, the goal of regulation is to prevent misery, not to point fingers afterwards.