The wording's fine, guys. Just because someone is capable of misreading or reading too much into a headline that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the headline. That's just language, and how people can sometimes parse the wrong thing from it. Communication isn't some contest to see who can have the least ambiguity.

> I know there is a lot of "Boeing bad" in all of Reddit

Well, it's for shit like this, the company squandering its talent pools and pedigree with goofy management and stumbling behavior. If they can't pull a major turnaround they're going to represent sludge that slows down the whole industry, simply by virtue of their size and sprawl.

Longer than it'd take me to cook up some pizza rolls, that's for sure.

> ive yet to see any of these bold claim stories bare fruit

Would you? I mean, how often do you note the claim and then follow up on it later? If you've ever dismissed a bold claim story that DID bare(sic) fruit, would you be aware of it?

"the bit where he says that no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist is frankly embarrassing" was pretty damn dismissive dude, GTFO with that dishonest-ass nonsense lol :D

Your point was some crude dismissal of dark matter based on what seems to be a gross misunderstanding you have. Sorry for correcting your misunderstanding. It must hurt your feelings, being corrected.

> it's called dark matter because it only interacts gravitationally, not because we can't explain why it should be there.

No, the notion that it only interacts gravitationally came much later. Previously it was assumed that it might simply be... dark matter, regular old gas, dust, rocks, stellar remnants, black holes, etc. that were not luminous. Take a look at MACHOs and WIMPs for theories about "dark matter" being regular standard model stuff that simply wasn't glowing.

It wasn't until decades later that "it only interacts gravitationally" became the dominating notion, entirely based on the preponderance of observations indicating something like that.

> I don't know why you put so much stress on it,

You wrote a big ol' screed baselessly attacking the article and the subject matter. Maybe don't do that?

We don't have a model for dark matter. It is called "dark" because it is unknown. We are currently in the early stages of creating a model to explain observations, one good enough to make predictions. Several models, actually, of which dark matter - that is, "matter that only interacts gravitationally" - is the only candidate that can explain the widest range of observations.

All models are only as good as their ability to explain observations and make predictions.

Literally all scientific models are made up to match observations. That's how the scientific method works.

"apart from its gravitational effects" is a pretty huge thing to just ignore like that, bud.

> If you read the article itself you'll find that those names were invented as merely labels for the inconsistencies in how Universe behaved.

That's just dismissively reductive. Those "mere" inconsistencies were like half a dozen separate observations that differed from expected values by a pretty exact amount, noted by many people, across many decades. This wasn't some flippant, casual invention but the product of rigorous observation and calculation, challenged at every step by multiple other parties with alternate theories that, themselves, do not explain all of the aforementioned observations.

By your complaints, I offer you just don't understand the data.

Insults are completely inappropriate.

> loss of data is no big deal

It's not necessarily an existential threat, is the point. Let's stayed focused and on-topic here.

> What happens when the actual object you're trying to observe is blotted out with an adjacent satellite streak

Take another picture. Pictures are cheap.

It's just bonkers to suggest observatories can't observe because a portion of some pictures is lost.

> Why are you so keen to downplay the effects of these satellites constellations

Why are YOU so keen on exaggerating the effects? An "existential threat" means astronomy cannot happen, not "every third ultra-wide image loses a few pixels to a satellite".

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to be going on about "existential threats". It will be somewhat of a nuisance. Astronomy will still happen, data will still be gathered, they'll just have their algorithms remove a few satellites from the thousands of photos taken.

Ultimately this is a problem that indicates its own solution: There's so much stuff up there because launching stuff has got so cheap, comparatively. Since launching stuff is getting so easy we'll be able to pop up space telescopes easier, too.

I mean Taiwan is officially the Republic of China shrug

Why can't an Apollo module be converted into a space station?

> The point is that there must be many other factors

Exactly, which is why it's weird to see someone insist that most members of a group must exhibit the relevant behaviors to establish a connection. Crime is a complicated issue and remains opportunistic even when there is greater incentive to commit it, for instance.

That doesn't track. It's not like a light switch where there's just the two "crime" or "not crime" states. It's a matter of likelihood that someone will commit a crime, not a guarantee.

If the crime rate increases as economic standing decreases, that establishes a link between poverty and crime, there's no need for most of the group to be exhibiting the behavior.

It's Lethabo Power Station in South Africa. It burns coal. Nuclear plants aren't the only ones to use cooling towers.

That's a coal burning power plant.

That's a coal power plant, bud. They emit lots of CO2.