Rhaedas @ Rhaedas @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

403

Joined

2 yr. ago

So it wasn't even political, she's just a nasty person in general.

This episode would have felt a little less contrived had it been established a few episodes before that Data was trying out a sleep subroutine. Maybe could have used its reference as a minor device in other ways, and then by this episode there's no need to develop the idea, you just use it as a method of detection for the invasion. And then the convenient timing is removed. Data's small talk or relationship routines are other examples. The emotion chip was done this way, being very important in the movies.

An example where they did to this. Riker and Minuet, as well as his trombone playing. Or Picard and the flute, or his detective hologram programs.

In before he claims that's why we shouldn't help other countries who declare war (on innocent countries implied, ignoring who invaded whom).

Without Gollum they would have both failed anyway. Everyone has their part, and maybe that's a subtle message to us in reality.

Joke's on them, there is no middle class anymore, not as stereotyped.

A medium is as good as the content within. I wouldn't throw everything out to try and sanitize the internet. Better to show why some data is worse than others, and how to validate that data. Start with not trusting the first thing you find, and dig deeper. That requires some time and effort, unfortunately, but there's no easy answer to filtering facts and fiction.

Back on Reddit I had a very old post reply saved from someone who through his work and connections had an inside view of the "wealthy", and they broke down the change from money to power as one goes from "just" millionaire to higher up. When money becomes no longer a concern, or rather when obtaining "stuff" (as Carlin would say) is no longer a factor, how much power and influence becomes more of a way to compare one's wealth to another. It may not even be important anymore on net value if one has a bigger leverage arm on things.

Ha, you're right, and isn't it ironic that doing the better thing for everyone ends up being more profitable? It's almost like they aren't concerned with the actual value that's lost, but more the difference between them and everyone else.

Corporations are already upset about the push to pay existing workers more money. To have much more paid time off means they'd have to hire more workers to cover those (already run lean) shifts, AND pay them leave time too. Think of the profit loss!

in any form

Is viewing and copying/pasting a manual form? I know the implied meaning is automation but as a legal document it should probably specify that. Unless the plan is to drive more people away, which does seem to be a trend.

The only thing that helps this headline stand out from so many "uh no, shutdown" headlines of the past is the included impeachment part. The shutdown will be used to its fullest drama potential just like before until the very end with some compromise, and the impeachment as well.

Is this impeachment about Hunter Biden, or have they moved on from that nonsense? Oh, it's about Joe Biden. Well, let's see what evidence you have to work with and...oh, you don't have any yet? That's kind of necessary, guys.

TNG, Voyager, or even ironically Strange New Worlds episodes would have failed badly in the 60s because they showed progression that was far out of range of that time. A "real" glimpse at a Star Trek universe would probably upset a lot of people now because it would be so different. While it's a show about optimism for the future and betterment of society, it is still a show that has to cater to the present audience.

It's like looking back at older books or shows and critiquing their ethics and language based on today's standards. Not a very fair assessment, especially if you use a few "infractions" to toss out the good parts.

The thing about not calling attention to things in the show is Gene's "show don't tell" philosophy. He believed the audience was smarter than the networks gave credit.

Yes, they do. The issues of why that's not a solution are complicated, but I'll touch on a few. Let's just say that we should absolutely be reforesting with multi-species forests everywhere we've taken away, but mostly to try and bring back some biodiversity we're killed, if possible. As a carbon sink plants of any sort, even fast-growing algae, have their limits, and we can't possibly plant enough to offset the millions of years of plant growth we've put into the air via fossil fuels. I can't speak for Australian land, who owns it, what it's used for or how arable it is for lots of trees.

So let's renew what we've taken, but for other reasons not the falsehood that it's a viable large-scale carbon sink.

Right. It's a big shell game made to look like things are getting done to appease any PR concerns. The very little bit that may go into actual reduction would be something like CCS for exhaust stacks, which in turn is used to increase production because, hey we're doing something about it (and using the CO2 gathered for products that end up back in the air). It does not balance out if you can get all the numbers. The annual world CO2 measurements are right there.

For what it's worth, I've heard that there's a major update coming this month sometime for Kbin, first in a while, so it might get a lot better (with the expected new bugs to chase). On desktop it's been mostly okay with the occasional glitches, but the real question that is hard to measure is how much is getting in and out from the fediverse properly. Hard to have a baseline when all the software is beta at best.

The reason cited for nuclear propulsion enabling us to get to places like Mars faster is wrong. It's not the amount of thrust, but the ability to use constant thrust longer (because we can fuel longer burns). It's why the plot device of the Epstein drive in The Expanse opened up the whole solar system - they can do a burn for days and use up very little fuel. We're nowhere near that, but nuclear would be far better than conventional rockets that have very limited burn time plus have heavy fuel to carry with them.

Offsets means that you can emit that amount of carbon because it's implied somewhere else the carbon will be removed. Except we can't remove large scales of carbon, so that's the scam part.

IDK why Lemmy is so full of people who want to explain to me things that were the underlying basis for the very thing they’re replying to

Let me explain this - that's how the internet has always...no, it's not even the internet, as people in general have been that way even before. It's just more apparent when you have many people all connected and discussing all at once. This isn't a Lemmy thing. Or a Reddit thing. Or whatever forum you want to use. It's people.

What it really is though - not everyone knows everything, so when someone misses the point, helping them understand it is more constructive than belittling their ignorance. Guaranteed that where there is one vocal of their confusion, there are many others lurking who can benefit. And you did at the end, that's a decent link to why offsets are a scam. Just could have started there instead.

I guess I could have done the same and just linked to XKCD's Ten Thousand which makes the same point quickly.

I'm in the same school of thought of not dismissing things that would actually change many of the problematic issues that all have contributed their part to create the predicament we find ourselves in. If it's not just another greenwashing to profit off climate change awareness, then let's do it.

But it is a predicament. While I think we should do everything constructive to stop damaging the environment, I don't think this with the illusion that there are solutions, but just that we should do the right things regardless of their effectiveness.

A subset of the kerning problem. Space layout is important.

I don't know why they'd be ashamed of a lower case t though...