Because the oldest known cuneiform is dated to be older than the oldest known hieroglyphics. The earliest Cuneiform is dated back to around 3500 BCE while the earliest Hieroglyphics are dated to around 3400-3200 BCE. Both have some amount of proto-language going earlier but it is unclear how developed they were.

Additionally, Sumerian script has a long evolutionary history that goes back to 8000 BCE that can be traced, while hieroglyphics seem to have sprung into use comparitively suddenly. This is why some scholars say that even if hieroglyphics are a fully independent system, it is possible cuneiform still stimulated that creation of a writing system.

>There is no evidence cuneiform influenced hieroglyphics

I didn't say there was.

Your original argument was that it was wrong to say Cuneiform developed first, but then your argument for that was that hieroglyphics developed independently which does not say anything about whether Cuneiform develpped first

None of this means cuneiform didn't come first. Scholarly consensus is that it did, but the degree to which it influenced the development of hieroglyphics is debated but consensus is leaning towards that hieroglyphics are independently formed with the most influence cuneiform could have had being stimulating the formation of a writing system if even that. This is because the oldest known hieroglyphics are younger than cuneiform but seem to have no connection whatsoever to it.

It's brown dwarfs specifically that are failed stars.

Not at the time of the photo.