FriendOfDeSoto

joined 2 years ago

I think that's my point. With PIC S2 we even get a second version of the Borgs. What's that all about? And then dropped and never discussed again. None of it is really reconcilable. They haven't explained it because they can't get out of corners they write themselves into. The Klingons are just another dishonorably unfortunate corner.

By European standards nothing to write home about. By Asian standards, a Mount Everestrian protrusion.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 1 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I think with Disco S1 they attempted a reset that didn't work. They all looked the same. Nobody really liked it. So they reverted to giving them hair and there's a throwaway line in S2 by Burnham that's tantamount to admitting failure by the show runners. And then we don't hear anything about it again. My guess is SNW will continue with ridged Klingons and just never explain it.

If they really wanted to go into canon, you could say there was the augment era during ENT, then they fixed their ridges with a hypospray, and then just before SNW reaches TOS times, there was a recurrence of the augment craze on Qronos. Or a COVID like virus escaped from a lab. It would be odd because all the characters we know from TOS never comment on this oddity - Spock, Kirk, Uhura have all seen ridged Klingons, then the smooth kind, and then ridged again in the movies. But stranger plot points have been ignored in Trek. Borg Queen anyone?

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I don't mind your suggestion. I think universal mail-ins are a good idea. At the same time, I have an inkling that you didn't read my comment all the way to the end.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 18 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

I have sympathy for non-voters in the US. Not so much out of principle but because of how it is done. Voting takes place on a Tuesday. That's because in ye olden days you had to allow people to attend church on Sunday before making the trip on horseback to participate in the election. That's a cute tradition but clashes with the way the economy works today. People are very dependent on their low-wage jobs that they can be fired from easily. If you're working two of those jobs to make ends meet, you may not have the "luxury" to skip work to go and vote on a normal weekday. That luxury often includes having to fill in a booklet of stuff that's on the ballot. You're not just voting on a president, a senator, or a congressperson. You may be asked your option on a plebiscite, a judge, a sheriff, a school board, etc. It is overinflated in my view and explains long slow moving lines at ballot stations that you don't often see elsewhere. And that's after a possibly Kafkaesque registration process to be eligible in the first place or to get mail-ins in some states. It is almost designed to keep people away. Maybe you're taking these structural problems as something "politicians cling to."

Make election day a public holiday that forces businesses who are open anyway to allow all their employees to go and vote.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 10 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

I'm being put in a difficult situation here because I'm gonna have to go ahead and defend the American "snowflakes." When it comes to interpreting the phrase "free elections" I think all democracies or close enough to that (which therefore includes the US) chose to say free means you're also free not to participate. Except for the Aussies. And while I'm not an American snowflake, I'm still a snowflake because I agree with that interpretation. It wouldn't just ruffle feathers in the US if mandatory election participation was prescribed. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Horse = voter, drink = vote. And I don't think the Aussie governments of the last two decades have proven to be superior because they're backed by a larger voter base. Remember the guy who ate raw onions?

Lenmy offers me the freedom to get mad at many different people running instances and not just one godforsaken company running roughshod over everything communities had created over years.

I'm not mad at anyone though because I don't share your views at all. I'm a happy Lemmy user.

And what is Lemmy dot world acting like at night?

I'm going to say yes and no to that one. At the time they establish forevermore what is left-wing and what is right-wing, we're past the estates general being called and I think also past the tennis court oath. For me, that's already revolutionary times, they just haven't cut Louie's head off yet.

Before that, I don't think there was much exchange between the second and the third estate. I am sure there were nobles who were willing to change things around. But it also wasn't a case where the second and the third estate, and maybe even the king, could agree on something and that would've been the end of that. France was riddled by internal fiefdoms with their own dumb trumpian tariffs. Any relief for the third would have had to involve rationalizing the economy and there were powerful lobbies (like the farmer general) who wouldn't like that. Plus, people were hungry and hungry people don't think straight. And Louie would've preferred to stick his head in the sand anyway and other than maybe Necker none of his ministers satisfied the requirements of "forward looking."

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What you're asking is a counter factual. There is no way to answer this question either way. The thing with revolutions is that people suspect it is coming at some point but are still surprised when it happens. The recent fall of Assad in Syria - we'd all forgotten about that mess. East Germany celebrated its 40th anniversary with socialist pomp and circumstance and crumbled a month or so later. The French Revolution was not just about abandoning feudalist structures. It ran in parallel with famine due to terrible weather, a looming bankruptcy of the crown, inefficient leadership from the king, a new way of leadership expected by his subjects, (invented) scandals that were spread by what would become mass media, and the changes in thinking in the age of enlightenment with people engaged in virtuous one-up-manship. That's after France had lent a helping hand to the American Revolution, not so much out of commitment to the cause but to point the finger at the neighbors across the Channel. You needed all of this in the blender to get to a point where enough people were radicalized enough to start chopping heads off. So even if they had found a negotiated solution to address the class problem, the revolution might still have happened, maybe a bit different, maybe not at all. Nobody knows.

Hoisted by my own methtard.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Hmm sound like something a meth dealer would say

I assure you. I'm not a meth dealer. Really. I don't know what else to tell you!

Thanks for answering my question.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 23 points 1 day ago (9 children)

If I were a breaking bad meth dealer and had all my buyers as contacts on that phone and all my incriminating chats, I wouldn't use biometrics to unlock it. But I'm not a meth dealer (and I'm not just saying that because that's what a meth dealer would say).

There is a spectrum of convenience vs. security. It depends on where you sit. I'm okay with the fingerprint, wouldn't go for the face.

Doesn't Android have the panic/cop switch where you force password over biometrics unlocking? It's not a 100% failsafe but it is a start.

 

I don't have the foggiest idea where I could've gotten the idea from.

view more: next ›