My biggest concern is that telescopes will soon hit a fundamental size limit when we run out of adjectives for naming them - I posit 'Inconceivably Large Telescope' to be the maximum.
Edit: come to think of it, mirrors are probably safe right? The birds will stop to avoid flying into the other bird.
'this thing is giant (you wont believe what happens next)'
'nobody expected it to be this big (you have to see it)'
'mr beast trapped in HERE for 8 weeks (cant plant any trees)'
No, we can't stop just yet as they are – conceivably – other models that will eventually surpass the «Inconceivably Large Telescope»:
– «Penultimately Inconceivably Large Telescope»
– «Antepenultimately Inconceivably Large Telescope»
– «Preantepenultimately Inconceivably Large Telescope».
A strings of further upgrades is also likely as a series of «Inconceivably Ultra Large» and «Pre/ante/penultimately Inconceivably Ultra Large» telescopes.
I guess astronomers, like programmers, are just bad at naming things.
When they are not using boring names like that, the astro world does have some great names. It lets us know humans were involved in the naming. From the acronyms to the super superlative names, they have a bit of personality to them.
(I let you guess, but that's a close cousin of the BFG)
Same with TFA. The Fine Article.
Customer: "I'd like a pound of broccoli, please."
Grocer: "I'm out of broccoli."
... repeat 1 or two times
Grocer: "How do you spell broccoli?"
Customer: "B-R-O-C-C-O-L-I."
Grocer: "You left out the 'F'."
Customer: "There's no 'F' in broccoli!"
Grocer: "That's what I'm trying to tell you!"
Though maybe there's some kind of strong enough diminishing effect on emphasis value such that any number of "terribly"s still has bounded effect XD
Look at Windows NT, for example: NT stands for "new technology". Well it obviously isn't new any more.
Books are an understandable phenomenon. They were supposed to disappear before the stuff they describe stops being valid. But we have a nasty tendency of naming permanent things "modern".
But anyway, it reminds me on how if you want a real textbook that covers a math or physics subject with all the details, you need to get the one named "fundamentals of X". If you go and get the "advanced X", it has a superficial and incomplete description that won't help you with anything.