Those are just the analysts that you cherry-picked. Here's why you picked poorly:
satellite internet that itself has pretty much maxed out the number of potential users because there's only so many people who don't have access to wired high-speed internet and can afford $100 a month for high-speed internet...
Your "analysts" have been saying this since Starlink was at 2 million active terminals. And the simple reason for that is basically this: It isn't a simple matter of "do you have access to wired internet?", chiefly because a lot of that wired internet is basically dogshit. Before Starlink, slashdot routinely ran pieces about how cable ISPs wouldn't serve areas that they told the FCC that they served, basically to prevent funding going towards rival broadband services, especially fiber, and somebody would have to pay insane prices just to get the last mile connection added where the ISP already said it was. These guys always had DSL access, but it was crap. Even when these guys have cable, it's still usually crap.
More importantly though, for their claims to be accurate, then we should have already seen Starlink's growth stagnate by now. But as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite has been happening:
https://www.reuters.com/busine...
Another critical thing you're missing is that Starlink isn't done increasing its total aggregate bandwidth. Not even close, really. You're also assuming that the demand for Starlink only exists for residential broadband, which is also a very bad assumption.
This is hype and people buying in because they are anticipating a bunch of people who can't get in on SpaceX IPOs and are going to want to just buy something related to space.
This article is about Rocket Lab, who is seeing increased demand just for launch services, and only launch services. That isn't hype, it's actual growth in a market that basically didn't exist until about 8 years ago.
YouTuber Patrick Boyle has a pretty good video explaining all of this in detail and explaining why the SpaceX IPO is a giant scam that's going to hit the economy like a truck.
That isn't what he said, moreover, he's working under the assumption that there will be no more significant growth in all things related to space. He could be right, he could be wrong. Prior to podcasting, he was a hedge fund manager. I don't know about his record in particular, but hedge fund managers are notorious for underperforming indexes, especially the S&P.
Most notably the rules of the NASDAQ were changed to allow all sorts of nasty little shenanigans
He's talking about the NASDAQ-100 index fund, not the NASDAQ exchange. S&P-500 is making a similar rule change. The people who run these indexes, aka index providers, don't make their decisions on a whim, rather they're quite calculated. In fact, people like Patrick Doyle pay these guys big money just to have access to the decisions that they make, which is exactly how S&P makes its money. Maybe he's got better ideas about how they'll perform than the S&P does, but people who say they do...rarely ever do. As for whether this rule change is right or wrong, I have no idea, but the fact that two indices are doing it suggests that it could be the right call.
I don't even know emotionally or intellectually how to process just how bad all this is going to be when it comes down on our heads. And we all know it always comes down on our heads and not the heads of the billionaire Epstein class assholes who made all this happen...
This is exactly the problem you're having: Your decision-making is entirely based on emotion. You clearly don't even understand about 75% of what you're talking about, rather you're just listening to whatever it is you want to hear while pretending the rest either doesn't exist or is "fake news". People who invest this way lose their money. Your emotion in this case is likely focused squarely on Elon, so for example, you're probably not aware (or just plain denying) that Tesla has gained EV market share in the US, China, and broadly in Europe over the last year. Sales in the US are down, largely due to the loss of tax incentives, but Tesla still remains quite profitable even here. Is the stock overvalued? Without a doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that your nonstop shouting about Tesla not being able to profit without the government incentives, which probably came from some of your cherry-picked analysts, has already proven to be very wrong, and the numbers reflect that. If you were betting actual money against Tesla, again based on emotion, you would have lost this particular bet.