Stories like Reid Tomasko’s - and others who’ve had Tesla buy back their defective Cybertrucks - highlight how the EV ownership journey can take unexpected turns.
I wish they wouldn't conflate these dumpsters with EVs as a whole.
Possibly. But how much more wear & tear would this be compared to the wear put on the warp drive, which gets incredibly frequent use? If that warp drive can withstand it, why not the shield emitters?
Yeah, I think the power-saving argument (#4) is potentially strongest, especially if the plot needs it to be for a given episode.
But I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in the shows where the maneuverability was limited by the shields. Certainly there are plenty of cases where power was routed to shields, maybe even the power that was meant for propulsion. But I think in general, those would be cases where power was already limited, or the need for defense was much higher. In general, I don't think I recall a trade-off where shields restrict maneuverability or speed.
So, this may be a frequently discussed topic, and I'm sorry if so. But I was watching S1 of SNW and there was a scene where an early "shields up" saved the ship from serious damage. And now that I think of it, I just can't come up with a good reason why shields aren't up all the time, with a few obvious caveats.
- Yes, shields must be down to transport, this seems like the most obvious reason to have them down. But we see plenty of episodes where shields are brought down momentarily for a transport. Why not do that always?
- One reason brought up frequently is that raising shields could be taken as an act of aggression. But if you arrive with shields already up, then you're not doing anything aggressive, you just arrived that way, so I don't think this makes much sense in a world where most Starfleet ships just keep their shields up.
- I don't know for certain, but it seems possible that shields may not be usable at warp. I don't remember any specific episode where that happened, but it seems possible. But even then, a ship could just be programmed to bring them up as it drops out of warp.
- I guess it could be possible that the power usage of the shields is too much for the day-to-day use. But again, it seems like a lot of missions clearly begin with "dropping out of warp into an unfamiliar area" and those are the times where your shields should just be up by default.
Of course, I know the answer is that "shields up" is great dramatic dialogue, but I guess I wondered if there are any more satisfying answers than that?
I totally agree that I love the variety of options! But I would be very happy if one of the options was that we get filler/bottle episodes for a few weeks per season, but every season is 26 episodes long. They could just spread the budget for 10 episodes across all 26, and make the VFX less... shiny.
(Of course, I don't actually want actors to be worked to the bone like they were in the 90s...)
A pretty cool episode. Top takeaways:
- I'm going to miss Captain Ransom. I think it would have been fun to have a season or two of him. Only Discovery has had the balls to hand over the Captain's chair to another during its main run, and I think that is a good thing.
- Starbase 80 is now set up as a new DS9-style show. A starbase guarding a dimensional portal. God I hope that happens. I just hope they pull off the ensemble cast that made DS9 such a classic.
- I hate the tease for Rutherford x Tendi, it's so mean to tease it in the finale :'( But really it's so cute.
Plenty more I missed of course.
Rewatching in preparation for the finale, and I keep feeling that the voice of Curzon Dax sounds quite similar to the voice of Odo in DS9. I'm quite aware that Rene Auberjonois passed away not that long ago: may he rest in peace. And I guess he was voiced by Fred Tatasciore (Shaxs), which I can hear too. But I keep hearing Odo which is really nice.
Yes? I'm not saying Michigan handed him the election, I'm saying protest votes and no-votes played a big role. We're fucked due in part to people who say "ooh that will show the DNC"
Look, it's such an exhausting night, and I really do believe that you want to see a better world. I do too.
I'm just so shattered that we're looking at four years of chipping away at the rights of women, LGBT, and transgender people. Four years of degrading all the checks and balances against the president. Four years of political retaliations going unchecked. Four years of aggressive anti-climate policy, inhumane border policy, and pandering to a Russia (and now North Korea!) that is also slaughtering innocents in Ukraine. Four years of middle east policy that is at least as bad as Biden/Harris's, but likely far worse. And four years of slamming our economy with tariffs to "own the Chinese" I guess.
A vote for Harris was a vote to make things better. Not everything. Good lord she wasn't the answer to so many major issues facing the US and the world. But it was an objectively better vote, by every metric, than a vote for Trump, or a no-vote. I just can't argue any more on that.
In many elections, that would make sense. But in this election, there was a sizeable group of Nikki Haley Republicans up for grabs, who clearly didn't want to vote Trump if they could get an alternative. Is there a group of leftists who may have turned out in larger numbers if Harris had swung left? Yeah, maybe. But is that group anywhere near as large as the Haley Republicans, and are they present in swing states? No and no.
One Cheney convert in a swing state is worth a dozen liberals like me in California lol. Swinging right is the rational political move for the leftmost candidate. Swinging left is the rational political move for the rightmost candidate, which is why we saw Trump clumsily try to soften his stance on abortion.
I mean, I do? Trump massively outperformed Harris in swing states, so clearly Harris's campaign wasn't able to meet swing state voters where they are. Literally, these were the only people who matter in the US election under the current rules (sadly). Of course Harris swung right, and of course it didn't work well enough, but not doing it would have been worse...
I hate politics as much as the next person, but god damn. Recognize the game is what it is, play it as necessary, and then move the needle where you can. Sheesh.
Watch an episode of DS9 maybe? Sisko is the literal embodiment of a person who is willing to make the tough choice that he personally finds unethical, but knows will be better for the world as a whole.
So then the logic here is "vote for a candidate who is at least as bad for Gaza, but will also fuck up the rest of the world". Or "don't vote for the candidate who will be obviously less damaging for the rest of the world, even though my action won't help Gaza at all".
Even if you assume Harris would have been just as bad for Gaza... I mean it's patently clear that the only choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils and then raise hell that you need better policies from them.
The one thing I've learned from experience w/ Donald Trump is that he finds a way to make things worse.
Anybody who failed to vote Harris shares the blame, it's fairly obvious lol
Florida's cannabis legalization ballot measure failed...
And thanks in part to Michigan voters, we have a president who will fuck over Gaza even more. Great success.
Lol I actually have very few open USB ports, thus why I choose to put the mouse cable in the spare one on my monitor. And I charge my phone on a wireless charger plugged into the wall?
Anyway I'm not telling you you're wrong for charging your mouse after work or whatever. I'm just saying that designers are wrong if they don't give consumers the option to use their mouse while charging its battery. That's just basic.
"I use it one way, so everybody must use it that way." Found the apple engineer lol
I mean while we're sharing anecdotes, I use a wireless Logitech mouse and I plug it in and continue using it when I get a low battery warning. I can't charge it overnight because I plug it into my monitor's USB port which powers down when the monitor sleeps.
We exist! Lol
City leaders want to help people ‘trapped by the exclusion zone.’
Pretty wild to watch London Breed get so excited about APEC as if it's some boon to the local economy. Local businesses are screwed, there's no upside like a normal conference. Residents in and around the area are hugely negatively impacted by the security arrangements, and I'm sure the added policing will respect everyone's civil liberties...
Sho Restaurant's flagship location was supposed to be at San Francisco's Salesforce Park.
So glad to see this horror show finally failed as it should. Hopefully the space gets used for a restaurant more accessible to the general public, and not related to dying tech fads like blockchain.
So I'm partly posting this because I like DS9 and wouldn't mind chatting about its episodes once in a while, so I'd love to hear people's opinions in general about the episode.
My main reason though is to voice a complaint. In this episode, some self-obsessed genius terraformer guy comes to DS9 for his latest project. Sisko starts meeting this woman Fenna, who keeps disappearing. Despite this he falls for her. It turns out that this woman is a psychic projection created by Nidell, the unhappy wife of the terraformer. She can't leave him because her species mates for life. At the end, the self-obsessed terraformer makes an uncharacteristic sacrifice, killing himself as part of his final crowning achievement, so that Fenna can be free from their unhappy marriage. At the end, Nidell cannot remember the "relationship" she had with Sisko, and she goes to talk to him. She asks what Fenna was like, and Sisko says "she was just like you."
And to me, this was such a record scratching moment. Like, let's set aside the fact that Sisko has had all of three conversations with either of them, so he barely knows either of them. Fenna dressed in bright colors with elaborate hairstyles, she talked about the excitement/anticipation of the promenade at night, she suggested impromptu picnics. As far as we can tell, she's spontaneous, outgoing, curious, and wants to explore. Compare that to Nidell, who dresses in muted colors, with a more reserved hairstyle. She tells Sisko that she plans to return to her home planet for the rest of her life (and she seems quite young). All that suggests a less spontaneous and curious personality, the sort of person who is happy to live in their hometown their whole life. Which is fine, but it seems to me that these two people are nothing alike, except that they look the same.
I get that Fenna is supposed to be a manifestation of Nidell's subconscious or something. So maybe she secretly wishes to be like Fenna. But that doesn't make the line work for me. I'm not certain if we're expected to agree with Sisko, or if we're supposed to understand that Sisko is only saying this to be nice, since he still has feelings for Fenna and doesn't want to hurt Nidell. Either way is weird.
Anyway, that's my complaint. This episode doesn't go down in the history books as an exciting one, but I sure did enjoy everyone's exasperated reactions to the terraformer dude.
Would love to hear other people's thoughts :)