I'm sure "ground-based telescope using astronomers" already loathe the moon as much as vampires hate the sun.
 

You doubt? You clearly know even less about orbital mechanics than I do, so why post ill-informed guesses?
  The scientists and engineers say that 70 km makes a difference.

  That "slightly-further-down orbit" has something like an order of magnitude lower air density. And I'm sure you know that drag is proportional to that.

Two closely related reasons why lower orbit is safer:

1) there is less debris there now, reducing the chance of collisions damaging the satellite.

2) if a satellite lost control, or was destroyed by an impact, it or the debris will return to Earth much faster, avoiding cascade risk.

Petrov is a prolific and successful youtuber, not a scientist. His dramatic claims do not accurately represent the paper he refers to.
You can read it here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.096...
(Jump to "discussion" on page 7 to avoid the math)

Technically, we already have a Kessler Syndrome in higher orbits . Based on what is already in orbit, collisions are generating new debris faster than the debris is
returning to Earth. But this plays out over decades, centuries and millenia. Not the Hollywood apocalypse that sensationalist click-bait youtubers imply.

The paper says that if all control of the exiting Starlink constellation was lost, a collision would likely occur within days.

In Australia, we call those idiots "bogans". Its a bit like redneck, but not necessarily rural.

You assume the service difference is because of tipping?
It also exists in sectors where there is no tipping in the US.
Do people really feel like they have to do a performance review after every meal? And then set a tip in accordance? That sounds very stressful.
Or do they just add a fixed amount every time?

I much prefer it when the menu tells me the price I will actually pay. Its a wonder US restaurants are not adding fuel surcharges, and rent contributions.

Did the numbers dramatically rise and then fall again?
You'd think on a tech forum, the editors might know what the word "spike" means. Do they even speak English?

I can't even see what the fuss is.
Temporary subsidies to establish a new technology are a good thing.
But photovoltaics, solar power generation, is dirt cheap now. It does not need subsidising, just less red tape.

Where I live, we already have an excess of solar panels, and they are turned off in the middle of the day for lack of demand.
So the subsidies have been shifted to batteries. We need cheaper storage now, not solar generation.
Is that the same in Utah?

Model? This isn't physics. Do you think an explanatory model, simple enough to understand, would be useful?

First you need to know what the question is. I don't think I can explain the problem well, but Richard Feynman can.
Watch this interview clip, you will not regret the minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He is being asked about magnets, but the response goes to the heart of science, of human understanding. I really think it will help.

for all intensive porpoises, yes.

Thankyou Captain Obvious. We had no idea what it was alluding to until you saved us!
Now tell me water is wet.

Humans?! Our ancestors started learning to cooperate billions of years ago.
What a bizzare question. Do you not see the social structures, the co-operation?
Paradoxically, large wars are only possible when vast numbers of people "temper that bloodlust" to trust strangers they have never met. Cooperation is good. I can do a speech on that too. Ying and Yang.

Why are you obsessed with the worst? The reality is that nothing non-trivial would exist without both competition and cooperation.

An absurd and obvious strawman. Are you pretending greed isn't a requirement of life? So is death. If nothing died, soon nothing would be born. You cannot have one without the other. Its as plain as entropy.

No idea what, but its already smart enough to not try winning debating points by answering its own question, then mocking its own answer. That would be really dumb.

Then you should be a fan of the man who got rich by building something beneficial that was not otherwise happening, not just getting there first.
But you are too short -sighted to see past his personal politics.

Its neither. You are not remotely as well informed as you think. Perhaps read more and talk less.