If the odds are high that we're living in a simulation, then the odds are almost as high that there's a simulation that is running that simulation. Just how far down do the turtles go?
It's a useless belief that can lead to nihilistic thinking. Plus it isn't scientific until we can test for it.
Personally I try to skip editing the pages where there is any element of sensitivity to the content. Let others war over that stuff. There is plenty of other material that needs improving. It's peaceful that way, and you'll accomplish more.
After many years of working with a CAB, my suggestion is to work with them but try to push for a Fast Track process that will allow you to apply lightweight changes with low risk. It will cut your struggles with the bureaucracy considerably. Also, when appropriate, try to bundle changes together into larger block releases, rather than taking through many small revisions.
Another interesting question is whether the companion will survive the explosion, be ejected from the system, and have stripped off enough mass to go supernova itself some day. Potentially a high velocity supernova!
The reason why the IAU is the body that gets to name celestial objects is international recognition. If every country used its own naming scheme, pretty soon the scientific communication would become a complete muddle.
The consideration of whether an idea should be considered "stolen" depends in good part on what use it is put. Regardless of whether economic secrets are being stolen and by whom, patent laws should still apply. Hopefully, that will have to serve to protect a company's investment in their R&D, as long as the law is applied at an international level. Even with hopes for patent reform, there is clearly still a need.