After a few years the orbit will degrade enough that it’ll start to fall back to earth. At that point, the satellite will either burn up completely on re-entry, or partially and the rest will fall to earth.

Either way, each of these satellites will be completely gone from orbit after a few years.

I believe that is correct.

In the book, they also took pains to point out the steps he took to try to avoid it happening to the other airlocks after that point too - by actually balancing out their usage a bit more, instead of just always using the same one.

But intelligence is the capacity to solve problems. If you can solve problems quickly, you are by definition intelligent

To solve any problems? Because when I run a computer simulation from a random initial state, that’s technically the computer solving a problem it’s never seen before, and it is trillions of times faster than me. Does that mean the computer is trillions of times more intelligent than me?

the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)

If we built a true super-genius AI but never let it leave a small container, is it not intelligent because WE never let it manipulate its environment? And regarding the tests in the Merriam Webster definition, I suspect it’s talking about “IQ tests”, which in practice are known to be at least partially not objective. Just as an example, it’s known that you can study for and improve your score on an IQ test. How does studying for a test increase your “ability to apply knowledge”? I can think of some potential pathways, but we’re basically back to it not being clearly defined.

In essence, what I’m trying to say is that even though we can write down some definition for “intelligence”, it’s still not a concept that even humans have a fantastic understanding of, even for other humans. When we try to think of types of non-human intelligence, our current models for intelligence fall apart even more. Not that I think current LLMs are actually “intelligent” by however you would define the term.

If you’re mixing things up in the kitchen, typically you try to be somewhat precise with ratios.

The difference in this case being that because the actual ratio of the blend is unknown, you don’t actually know how it would crystallize. Technically they could even change up the ratio week to week based on the price of high-fructose corn syrup so you wouldn’t even get consistency from it.

I agree with many of the other commenters that OP debating their husband might not be the best idea.

But if that’s what they want, “Decoding the gurus” did at least one Rogan specific episode, and I think they do a better job covering and dismantling Rogan’s rhetorical approach than the podcasts above.

I haven’t actually read the novel version, just seen the movie enough times to know this wasn’t in it and that there was a novel

Probably the novel on which the movie was based.