Fools! That’s exactly what was missing from creating Skynet! The workers were replaced with slop bots, now management gets replaced by slop bots too! It’s slop bots all the way down! Run for the hills!

It seems to me like you are coming to grips with the fact that statistics are nice but one mustn’t trust those one hasn’t forged personally.

I imagine there may be political or even practical reasons why they draw the line there. A lot of times lines remain fixed because they made more sense when they were drawn ages ago and now it’s just a pain in the butt to change them. Or to keep numbers comparable with those from previous years.

Unless it’s an air gapped machine run for a specific reason, nobody should run Win7 in 2026. If it’s connected to the internet, you are doing that at your own peril. Obligatory switch to Linux.

“Censorship” is probably not quite the right word here, is it? You’re thinking more along the lines of privacy. Censorship is what a government does. And that would affect the content of the internet more than anything else you come in contact with. And that is roughly the same whether you run your browser on a Win7 or Win11 machine (save maybe some more modern features the outdated browsers cannot do).

If you’re worried about the spectre of age verification, I would suggest switching to Linux and investing into a VPN.

A memory wipe would make sense. Or they go back in time, say, to punch some more dinosaurs, come back, and there is just Bob at her station and nobody bats an eye because the timeline was changed. A reverse Sela (the RomYarLin from TNG) move. Because I’d like both of these solutions, I’m very positive they’ll find a far less satisfying one.

I think you could save this one still. People knew his name before he was elected leader because he was imprisoned by his racist government. That’s not really a good thing.

Aung San Suu Kyi, for a short time while in power before she tolerated genocide on her watch, would have sort of fit in the Mandela category as well.

Strange New Worlds is en exercise of writers writing themselves into exceedingly narrow corners if in the end they want to connect to TOS. They had a descendant of Khan on the crew, half the crew dated her, yet none of that comes up when they meet the actual Khan. I wonder how they will connect that story point.

During the wedding episode, nobody sees Trelane as Trelane. They see other people he inhabits. In the daily soap ep, only Pike sees him, and he isn’t around later. So they kind of got that right, I think.

The first coherent space opera was Babylon 5 where one creative mind oversaw everything and in the end wrote all the scripts. The reboot Galactica is another example. You could tell The Expanse was all made up by these two guys. I’m sure I’m forgetting something, a Stargate possibly. But Trek and also Doctor Who all change with their changing writers and over the decades. There are periods where certain people are in charge and there is stability in story and focus. But then their tenure ends and somebody else comes in. And if it all made sense and everybody loved it the same way we’d have nothing to bitch about.

I think the problem arises mostly from trying to add subtitles to arrrr creatively acquired videos where the settings of the creator were not adhered to in the strictest sense.

I mean, I totally wouldn’t know about that myself, I just heard about it online.

Eight minutes can seem very long though.

As I said before: I don’t want to be the guy who defends PIC … Jurati being justifiably imprisoned or at least institutionalised may have also spared us S2. Who am I to argue with that?

I’m thinking of Quark who burgled, sabotaged, schemed, snuggled, bought more than one child from the GQuad, and engaged in weapons trade and remained for the most part a comedic diversion character 7 series long. No consequences and maybe the thinnest veneer of looking at any of his decisions from an ethical POV. That’s another reason why I don’t perceive the difference you describe.

We could probably go back and forth a couple of more times here but maybe we leave it at that? Just tell me in no more than a paragraph: Tuvix. Janeway yay or Janeway nay? I’m just curious.

I hear you. You think crossing the line mattered in 80s+ Trek but it doesn’t now. I don’t think that’s true. Sisko poisoning a planet is one of the examples where it clearly didn’t. But should have. So nostalgia is the only thing I could come up with to explain why you like the older and dislike the new stuff.

I don’t want to be in a position where I have to defend Picard, the show. Half of S1 is okay and then it goes off the rails. There are moments in it that are good. Overall, it’s a mess. One aspect that they did well is that they show a hero aging. Kurt Corbain will always be an icon because he ended his life early. So we were spared his ideas on COVID, Q Anon, or pick another hot button issue later in life or albums continually deteriorating in quality. With Picard they wanted to show consequences and chisel away at the icon a bit. The trauma of being borgified. His being sidelined for his unwillingness to bend to his superiors’ will. Why they had to bring his parents into it will be the writers’ secret. But they show consequences of lines being crossed. One of them is him standing rightly on his professional principles. It sounds to me this is exactly the stuff you’re missing and they built the whole S1 premise on it.

Burnham getting to be captain is about as realistic as chubby Kirk being demoted back to Captain.

On a slightly unrelated note:

What’s up with double-spacing every sentence?

It’s really

annoying to read

if you ask me.

I think you are partially trapped in nostalgia. Star Trek has never been this philosophically pure. Picard broke the Prime Directive in S1 by having contact with the Edo. And then regrettably prevented them from executing Wesley for trespassing a flower bed. Either should’ve cost him his command.

When Data has an inappropriate chat with a girl on a dying planet, JLP jokes with Riker about the level the shit is up to for them. And there are no palpable consequences for any of this behaviour.

Picard doesn’t feel like he should plant the Borg bug in Hugh. Admiral Valarian Canapés wholeheartedly disagrees. And while I like Picard’s reasoning, from a ten thousand foot perspective I agree with her. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have prevented the best TNG movie from existing but perhaps we would have also been spared Picard S2-3.

Late TNG and early DS9 with the introduction of Starfleet Al Qaeda, i.e. the Marquis, is a turning point for me. We get more stories that are more grey. Star Trek went from Kirk coming to a planet, telling the inhabitants their culture was stupid, to more contemporarily thoughtful treatments of ethical and moral conundrums in a utopian world, to seeing where utopia rubs up against the rest of the galaxy that isn’t there yet. Starfleet and the Federation are no longer exclusively the good guys. Sisko poisons an atmosphere just to catch one traitor and gets away with it. WTF?

Janeway gets a pass from me for most of her bad decisions because she tried and had to figure stuff out by herself. Tuvix be damned!

Enterprise also exists.

Third wave Trek is more grey than Marquis era Trek. It’s more CGI and action oriented because they can. That saves a couple of pages of dialogue otherwise spent on ethics. It’s different just like TNG was different from TOS. But it isn’t a radical change if you ask me.

Early TNG isn’t great until they stabilised the writers room. And then there is a continuation of development through DS9 and even into ENT. (Unfortunately including grade A assholes.) “Chaos on the bridge” is the default for Disco and Picard. And that’s why they often tell weird stories that don’t match up with what came before. They try to do Trek in the now passé golden age of television. And failed a lot imo.

Of all the third wave Trek, I’m most fond of Lower Decks. Because it doesn’t take itself too seriously and is littered with easter eggs. Disco S2 is good. Most of SNW S1-3. Picard had moments in it but that’s it. My heart’s not in it any more. I watch it because I see we are entering another content drought. I even enjoy SNW S4, not because I think it’s good Star Trek but because it’s a middle finger to Paramount for no longer financing any new projects.

I understand that you are inconvenienced by this chance in policy. Why do you do the research though, answer your own questions, and then come here to ask them anyway? Are you lacking the confidence in your own research or do you wish to show off what a knowledgeable cosmopolitan gamer you are?

The “I find it fucking disgusting, bro!” fraction probably isn’t here. Or if they are, they are probably smart enough not to walk into this wood chipper.

There is a strong correlation between shame people feel for having tried it before or for not being able to admit to themselves that they feel this way and then how loud they get. Pair that with religiosity or just a very conservative environment and upbringing and you get the aforementioned bros. It’s more about how they feel, how insecure they are, than about anything physically off-putting. And as somebody who once reacted poorly to being hit on by a lovely Aussie, I think it’s also the somewhat unexpected element of it. We are pattern recognisers. Heterosexual is the majority. We can easily get freaked out by something that’s different. And a lot of the LGBTQ+ folks are still not living their romance in public (if there is some and they also want to) because they avoid wood chippers society has an unfortunately abundant supply of for them.

She wrote another book on the Empire, which is also good.

A little more broad than just reunification but it chronicles a chunk of it from a GDR point of view: Katya Hoyer Beyond The Wall.

I’m an alien. I’m a legal alien.

I remember the day when the training wheels came off my bike and it was glorious. The feeling of success you can only feel as a child when you have mastered something you think you should do. They didn’t come off because they were no longer cool. They were never cool to begin with. And you didn’t have much say in the matter anyway.

I am willing to believe that balance bikes to proper bikes is a better learning experience, according to the boffins. That doesn’t mean though that anybody who learned on training wheels is inferior. People who learned to ride a bike like that also won the Tour de France.

I think if I was caught like this, the last thing I’d want to do is talk to the media about it. Not even under a pseudonym. But this story is probably not here to make Google feel bad and return some of the money. This is a reminder for parents everywhere to review payment and parental settings on anything their kids use online. You can be smug enough to say my 8yo doesn’t stream on Twitch or whatever because why tf would you let them anyway. But you’re deleting the credit card off of Google Play because you forgot it was there because parenting makes you forgetful at times.

I don’t have an example for you. I see another left hook coming your way unexpectedly and that is from the term “genocide.” It’s fairly new. It was coined during WW2. And people still argue about the definition. We have killed each other for time immemorial but we didn’t have that label that stuck to slap onto the most egregious cases. So anything before the Holocaust is given the label after the fact. And that will have some historians at the ready contesting it. So most genocides are contested not because they don’t want to admit a lot of killing was going on. But because they cannot agree on what genocide means.

They hold ten-year trials in The Hague to figure out if a Milosevic or similar asshole is guilty of it. There is wiggle room in the definition. Were enough people killed? Was it targeted enough? And other distasteful questions.

We talk about genocide like it’s a fixed term and everybody knows what it means. But it’s more in that “I know it when I see it” category and the resulting wiggle room will make any argument you’re having harder. You can’t get to the slam dunk of your argument when your opponent withdraws from it on this technicality.

My opinion as another cis dude: there are three things at play. (1) What is the definition of “feminism?” If you believe that women and men and everybody in between and beyond are equally worthy members of society and should not be discriminated against in any way, then you fit my definition and can call yourself a feminist. (2) I recognize that this is a hot button issue for some people unfortunately. I also see that other people may operate under a different definition. I give shit to anybody with opinions on the matter that go against (1). I don’t necessarily use the word “feminist” in that context because some words - good words! - have a way of closing people off like an oyster. “Woke” and “feminism” are two examples. Worthy concepts behind both in my view but the mere mention makes some people stop listening. Especially those who would benefit from widening their horizons. Humans are capable of rational thought but we don’t always do or behave that way. I’m dogmatic in my opinion but I’m not dogmatic in the language that I use so I try and adjust it to fit the situation. (3) Even among supposed allies you’ll find oddballs. You don’t want to be a self-professed feminist who mansplains feminism, just as an example.

In this mixed minefield, I think I want to be judged more by my actions than the terms I use.