Deme

It's interesting that the view isn't horribly pixelated due to too much screen time. Anon must like books or something...

A very USA-centric comment. While it is true that countries that were former colonies have their roots tied to those imperialist projects which definitely involved finance, this is not the case for countries that didn't start as colonies. The sweat of the subsistence farmer or the feudal peasant/slave was what built the foundations of most countries.

In a truly post-apocalyptic setting there definitely would not be any need for finance of any sort. Job titles such as the one in the meme above are bullshit jobs that only exist to serve modern consumer capitalism. That is to say, they are not necessary. That's what this meme is about in my opinion.

Yeah, the best case scenario assuming that the world got its act together tomorrow...

Not an arcus, but what looks to be a series of Stratocumulus volutus. Nice find nonetheless!

Arcus is a supplementary feature attached to a strong convective cloud (Cumulonimbus or possibly a strong Cumulus). This isn't the case here.

A per capita map would also be nice.

They're right on this one. This picture here is pretty illuminating about the sizes of the views that Hubble captures:

Image source with additional reading. Zooming into an object a couple of meters in size on the surface of the Moon is in a completely different ballpark.

I'm no astronomer or astrophotographer, but this picture of the moon clocks in at around 320 meter angular resolution. That being said, a lot of post-processing goes into a shot like that, so some detail may be lost due to that. The atmosphere of the Earth is pretty difficult to deal with as its disturbances cause fuzziness and shimmering. Stacking multiple frames can help, but it's still never perfect. Earth based telescopes sometimes shoot a laser up along their line of sight to get an idea of how the atmosphere is messing with them.

For comparison, The Hubble space telescope gets around 90 m angular resolution for objects at the distance of the Moon.

To build on this: The technology to fake it didn't exist back then.

You'd need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn't yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.

I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn't have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.

It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.

Focal distance doesn't matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they're observing up there.

I agree with your first paragraph, but not your edit. People just get attached to their comments. Nobody wants to see their (at least in their opinion) meticulously thought out debunk slamdunk of a comment ending up hidden or deleted. Even more so if making said comment took time and research for sources etc.

Well, those are in higher orbits where there's a lot more space. LEO is the biggest problem because it's got the majority of all satellites and debris and it's relatively small. GEO ~~is also pretty crowded~~, but almost all the satellites there are flying in neat synchronization, because, well, Geostationary orbits.

Edit:

Maximum debris concentrations can be noted at altitudes of 800-1000 km, and near 1400 km. Spatial densities in GEO and near the orbits of navigation satellite constellations are smaller by two to three orders of magnitude.

• ESA