Skip episode 1, "Encounter at Farpoint". It sucks all around. Watch it later if you're really curious but don't say I didn't warn you.
If you want to check out a "representative" episode, see Season 5 Episode 2.
(edit: the episode is named Darmok) You don't have to know everything going in, it's self-contained. If you like the episode you'll like Star Trek.
I remember really liking Encounter at Farpoint when i was a kid
Rewatching it more recently, I realized Diana's "PAIN! I FELL PAIN!" was her sensing the audience's reaction to the horrible episode
Like... It had a single episode worth of good episode in there but they left the other half in that should have hit the editing room floor
ETA: I had to look up what season 5 episode 2 is, and yes, that's an excellent representation
I'd argue that the second pilot of the original series, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is also a excellent overall introduction to Star Trek: cerebral rather than action oriented, the focus on the people and their relationships both with each other and their own humanity, asking questions of the audience to make us think, solid message ("absolute power corrupts absolutely")...
But definitely skip the original pilot, The Cage, in its standalone form. Watching that, we were damned lucky it didn't get shitcanned fully right then and there
People are afraid of being enslaved by something intelligent when we're already enslaved by unintelligent systems. Capitalism, imperialism, culture, even evolution itself. These forces already control us, reducing our lives to mere mechanical functions. There isn't a being in control of these systems, but they still devalue us as people. No artificial intelligence will ever dominate us like natural unintelligence.
Evolution created everything about us to survive long enough to reproduce. It might have created all positive emotions we can ever experience, but it's often advantageous for evolution to design suffering into our lives.
Many animals live short and brutal lives, giving birth through penises, fighting amongst each other to stay on top of violent hierarchies, cheating on their mates whenever possible. Most people are less happy after having children, but knowing that rarely affects our decision to have them. Love often encourages us to enter toxic relationships, taking away our infatuation and rose tinted glasses once leaving the relationship is costly.
About half of all humans are designed to take serious risks to gain status or resources, their bodies aging quicker and doing less to repair itself. The other half gets to live a little longer and be a little healthier, but once they stop being able to have kids, their bodies start breaking down more quickly to hasten their end. Even aging itself only exists to speed up the evolutionary process. Evolution generally wants us to live lives that are as short as possible to allow for more generations in less time.
Evolution is what created all our drives and programs us to do everything we do. That isn't necessarily enslavement by itself, as nothing about us can exist outside of evolution, but the way it drives us towards personal suffering and death is enslavement. We don't matter in comparison to our role in replicating genes. We're designed to be disposable. Evolution may be the process of life, but it's also the process of death.
I think you’re attributing waaay too much to evolution.
About half of all humans are designed to take serious risks to gain status or resources, their bodies aging quicker and doing less to repair itself. The other half gets to live a little longer and be a little healthier…
You’re describing gender roles, which are very much socially created. This is something we can change and not created by evolution.
Love often encourages us to enter toxic relationships…
It’s manipulation not love (or evolution). This feels like you’re blaming the victim.
Evolution generally wants us to live lives that are as short as possible to allow for more generations in less time.
This is clearly not true, as evidenced by all the animals that live extremely long lives.
Evolution doesn’t “want” anything. It’s a very passive process.
Evolution may not want, but certain strategies are more successful than others in specific contexts. Long lived animals still age, only seeming so long lived relative to us. Aging is a balancing act of the benefits of generational iterations vs the value of experience.
Toxic relationships don't require manipulation on the part of one person. Infatuation can lead people with incompatible personalities to make costly commitments to each other. Partners can genuinely treat each other with respect and still end up in relationships that harm all parties.
This comes back to the social construction of gender roles, even though I mostly focused on the well accepted effects of primary sex hormones. There are biological factors that limit the gender identities and expressions we can comfortably be. Some people feel comfortable with a wide range of identities, while others are more limited. If anything, seeing one's gender as so maliable to social influence implies that conversion therapy would be effective and validates the idea of trans identities are a social contagion
The constructed nature of gender comes from the constructed nature of essence. Our brains understand the world by constructing a model of reality based on these essences, qualia, or forms. Gender is the simplified categorization of social dynamics, but so are all ideas we could ever use to describe society.
This is the same Billie Joe whose fans went home from an "American Idiot" anniversary concert surprised that he got "political". I reckon there's plenty of scope there.
That's almost as good as the people who drag on RATM for being political. But not nearly as good as fans shit talking Morello and telling him he needs to stick to what he knows.
"You don't have to have a degree in political science from Harvard to understand this, but I actually do" (or however he phrased it) was one of the best comebacks to bad faith "stick to what you know" admonishing ever 😄✊️
For posterity, the quote (that I never get tired of reading):
“One does not have to be an honours grad in political science from Harvard University to recognise the unethical and inhumane nature of this administration but well, I happen to be an honours grad in political science from Harvard University, so I can confirm that for you,” Morello wrote in reply.
I get what you mean, but considering how many influential people are having their anti-trans opinions broadcast (see: JKR), I think this kind of article is more necessary than you might think.
I don't really care either way, I just thought it was an amusing point in context. The majority of what I listen to has pop on the end so I don't have much to gatekeep.
It's fucked-up that Firefox even checks for updates itself (instead of letting the package manager do it) in the first place. It wouldn't have the bug if it didn't have the unnecessary functionality.
Yeah, probably easiest & best to uninstall and reinstall with a package manager. Anything that manages updates will likely have Firefox configured to not check for updates
If you are a GUI kind of guy try your OS's app store.
Otherwise apt, yum, homebrew or winget should do the trick :)
In context, my comment was really more about dunking on Windows for not having proper package management. Firefox only "needs" that feature because it's working around Windows' deficiencies.
I'm pretty sure it's disabled on the M$ Store version.
Also, on macOS it's so annoying that literally every app checks for (and even wants to install) updates while I have the Brew package manager installed.
I never understood what the fuck was up with that. Most older dumb phones had that feature and even if they deemed it unnecessary, the sheer amount of flashlight apps would prove them wrong
Older flash bulbs weren't really made for long uptime. If you were using your flashlight for under a minute looking for something it was fine but any longer than that and it would start getting really hot. Once manufacturers caught on that everyone was using apps for it (and potentially damaging their phone in the process due to heat) we got better bulbs and baked in controls for it.
Wouldn’t agree.
You could’ve recorded a 30 minute video with the flashlight on without any issues. They also wouldn’t allow API access to the flashlight hardware for those apps if it was damaging the phones.
Plastic Sony Ericssons and Nokias had flashlights circa 2005 and could shine day and night and every one of those phones had internal power control of the LED (it would shine brighter when taking a photo and be dimmer when used as a flashlight).
Meanwhile metal and glass iPhones with even better heat dissipation didn’t have flashlight as a system feature until iOS 7 in 2013.
I don't know about the heat aspect, but third party flashlight apps are just using the camera API without showing you a viewfinder or exposing shutter controls.
Even the built-in flashlight toggles on Android are still just creating a camera session and enabling the flash.
To block third party flashlight apps, manufacturers would have to block third party camera apps too, or add in some sort of global time limit for the flash.
That’s actually correct but I assumed they opened up the API afterwards. I used to notice it before because the optical image stabilization would kick in and you could hear the solenoids kick the lens around as you move the phone.
I am of the opinion that closed-minded thinking is only part of the issue. The other part is there are well financed interst groups who work hard to create and encourage division in order to prevent regular folks from working together for a common cause.
The reason is simple: convince people to fight amongst themselves and they will be too busy to notice how much they are being ripped off by the tiny handful of rich people at the top.
lemmy.ohaa.xyz
Top