> If astronomy is not able to cope with additional regulation without additional funding, then for-profit companies should not be expected to do so either. It's that simple

So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field.

And for-profit companies who later join to compete with them? They should, because it's not "additional"? Or also not, to ensure a competitive market?

So basically no regulation of any kind shall happen, because companies should not be expected to cope with new regulation if it incurs additional effort for them.

Congrats.

> So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field.

That is not what they said. That's an extremely bad-faith statement that's not even a "misinterpretation", because that implies that there is a valid interpretation, and there isn't - you just made up something completely different and claimed that they said it.

You're really not helping your argument here if you have to resort to lying about other peoples' words in order to try to defend your positions.

> So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field.

Interesting that was your takeaway, when all I actually said was "no double standards pls".

(i.e., hold astronomy and for-profits to the same standard, insofar that they have to just 'deal with it' when new regulation shows up - or not.)