Is the number of end-user connections that fiber can carry "almost arbitrary" as in one less than an arbitrary number, or as in only being slightly determined by the actual capacity of the fiber?

Wouldn't it be funnier if I didn't?

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

The problem with that statement is that it is an average. Probably close to zero Americans actually drive 40 miles per day. The point is this: Only rich people can afford a $60,000 car that is worthless other than for everyday commuting along with a second vehicle for longer trips where stopping for several hours after every 2 hours of driving is impractical. The average American may drive 40 miles per day, but the average American probably does make a one-way driving trip of over 160 miles at least a couple times a year (twice per major traveling holiday).

I don't do two takes. Amateurs like you do two takes.

Read my other response, and dig deeper if you want. AC is quoting a sensationalist source that is itself misstating another sensationalist source which does not cite to any factual sources at all, but even so the original claim is that benzene is "sometimes" used in fracking. There's not any claim that it's commonly used or that it's used in a meaningful quantity when it is used. The most legitimate complaint about hydraulic fracturing is that the exact chemical makeup of fracking fluids are proprietary information that is not disclosed to the government regulators or to the public. An AC on Slashdot posting a link to a sensationalist misquote of a sensationalist publication that does not cite any factual sources is among the least legitimate complaints about fracking.

Here's some actual sarcasm (the story about the kitten is an actual claim I've heard made): Nice source. The document you point to is entitled "Horizontal Fracking - Unacceptable Risks" and its thesis is "Do we really want this in Michigan???" Yes, with three question marks. This is not a scientific journal. But, let's continue our research and find out whether the claim is valid.

Taking the one item from the list you pointed to, I find propublica.org, which is a website whose first-listed "major project" is "Fracking - Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat." Their perspective on the world is clearly prejudiced against fracking, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, so we continue.

A little searching finds this article as the one most likely intended to be cited by your source. The reference there to the event in question is, in full, "In another case, benzene, a chemical sometimes found in drilling additives, was discovered throughout a 28-mile long aquifer in Wyoming."

There is no citation to when or where this event occurred, other than somewhere in Wyoming. No information about who reported the event or investigated it. No information on whether benzene, which the article says is "sometimes found in drilling additives," is ever found in substances other than drilling additives. No information about how deep the aquifer is, what gas wells and depths had been drilled and fracked nearby, how far away those wells were from the aquifer, or even the slightest tidbit that would allow a person to do independent research to verify or dispute the claim. It is correlation equating to causation at its finest, and that's being generous.

I don't think you understand. A well was fracked 30 miles from a woman's house and now her kitten is sick. It's the duty of our news media to make sure that this stops immediately before fracking in the Rocky Mountain region starts causing AIDS in Africa or antisemitism in Florida.

Okay, maybe that's not fair. But this is: It is the business model of the news media to create controversy where none exists so that they can report on the controversy.

The only thing that you have proven is that you lack a sense of humor.

All general statements are false.