>Doing 5% less science is an acceptable cost That's certainly one choice we can make as a society. However my point is we shouldn't delude ourselves that the

>Doing 5% less science is an acceptable cost That's certainly one choice we can make as a society. However my point is we shouldn't delude ourselves that there's some "easy" fix, therefore the cost should actually by counted as zero. This defense mechanism is misguided and uninformed, yet it's shockingly common to have it (or some variation) crop up when discussing this particular topic. Personally, I blame the current tribalize-all-the-things trend. You're either on Team Starlink or Team Astronomy. Only two options. Pick a side, we're at war!!! > And who knows,... one of those grad students could invent a way around it. See? Shockingly common. :D Even when we don't even have an idea, nevertheless we feel oddly compelled to suggest that maybe there's an easy ("grad student") solution that makes the scientific cost simply go away. If we're willing to pay the cost in lost scientific data, then let's do it and say so. We shouldn't live in (oh so tempting!) denial about the downsides. That's all I'm saying.