Btw that sexual assault scene is even more fucked up when you learn that Grace Lee Whitney was sexually assaulted by an unnamed executive associated with the series…

But you gotta love the next paragraph:

Two episodes before we shot Hugh’s death [scene], they called me in. They were kind of cagey about it. They said, “Listen, this is Star Trek. Nobody really dies.”

🖖

The focus on drama over logic completely shallows out the allegory until it’s JUST a gay couple being contemporarily gay on screen

Yeah. That’s my point.

Maybe there is no allegory.

Maybe it’s just a gay couple on screen.

Like Nichelle as Uhura was just a black woman in an elevated position on screen.

No message. Just simple representation.

Why is that such a problem?

Because if you ask people in the community, many will tell you they’re kinda sick of the gay experience only be represented in a negative light, always a struggle, always a message, as opposed to just them simply and comfortably existing.

So, putting a gay couple on screen and just having it be a normal aspect of who they are (to be clear: the nature of their relationship was never a plot point on the show) is “blandly doing the cultural issues”?

Was casually putting Uhura, a black woman, on the bridge of a starship on a show airing in the 1960s, without ever calling attention to her race, also “blandly doing the cultural issues”?

They could just as easily close ranks with support for Bibi galvanizing over perceived foreign influence in their politics. Nationalism is a powerful narcotic and the US making that move could just pump it into their veins.

The show has one non-binary character and a gay couple and suddenly they’re relying on “cultural hot topics”.

Please.

Disco had a lot of flaws, and most of them were the same flaws we saw in Picard: the writers just couldn’t write full season plot arcs that were satisfying and believable. This is made worse because each season had to raise the stakes, to the point where it just got kinda exhausting. Meanwhile the show just took itself way too seriously, without really earning my emotional investment.

Random turbulence that maims the flight crew just wouldn’t be practical as a “thing that just happens” on regular longhaul flights.

I never said it happens often but it absolutely does happen. Here was a particularly spectacular example that happened to folks a few years back on their way to Australia (and note, if you want more examples, the article lists a couple of other past incidents that also resulted in crew and passenger injuries):

https://apnews.com/article/49db2788d04d4e11bcbb1a63dbae4199

Passengers on a flight from Canada to Australia said they had no warning about turbulence that suddenly slammed people into the ceiling of the plane and injured more than three dozen — a phenomenon that experts say can be nearly impossible for pilots to see coming.

One passenger on that flight noted:

“The plane just dropped,” passenger Stephanie Beam said. “When we hit turbulence, I woke up and looked over to make sure my kids were buckled. The next thing I knew there’s just literally bodies on the ceiling of the plane.”

So again, I cannot emphasize this enough: wear your damn seatbelts, people.

Fair enough. Notably, that quote isn’t in the Reuters article, which is what I was commenting on.

No arguments about the need for an investigation, particularly if that quote from the pilot is genuine.

All that says is they’re investigating.

At this time, unless something new comes to light, there’s little reason to believe it’s anything but an unusual episode of turbulence.

Edit: and according to a different article, there is at least one passenger who claims the pilot said their controls “blanked out” which would qualify as “something new”.

deleted by creator

Headline is clickbaitey, the fact it’s a Boeing is irrelevant. This can just happen.

I was on a flight to Colorado from Canada, flying over the Rockies, and we hit a mild patch of turbulence that, without warning, suddenly turned into a quick, long drop that threw folks who weren’t belted in out of their seats and sent drinks flying.

The lesson is simple: wear your damn seatbelt and avoid walking around the cabin unnecessarily.

That’s roughly right, but that doesn’t make him in any meaningful way “good”. Of course I also don’t think anyone who decided to drop the bombs on Japan was a “good guy”. But maybe that’s why I’m not a pure utilitarian.

Absolutely not, unless you adhere to pure utilitarianism. Veidt kills untold numbers of innocent people on a self-imposed quest to do what he believes will save humanity. He was a straight up megalomaniac and the only upside is that his murderous actions eventually lead to peace.

Oh, no worries, just figured I’d add that extra little bit of detail as it’s a useful hook into a lot of other git concepts.

For folks unaware, the technical git term, here, is a ‘ref’. Everything that points to a commit is a ref, whether it’s HEAD, the tip of a branch, or a tag. If the git manpage mentions a ‘ref’ that’s what it’s talking about.

Then don’t call it that?

If the bar is “never made a mistake or published a questionable article in the entire history of the institution”, then there’s no such thing as a “newspaper of record” and I’m fine with that. Frankly, I never liked that idea as no one, no institution, no media outlet, no person, is totally free from bias, and no one should treat any one paper as universally authoritative.

But claiming the NYT is “unreliable” now, today, based on the actions of people who, if not dead are almost certainly retired today, is ridiculous.

deleted by creator

Also let’s just appreciate that the two examples cited by the poster are 1) a recent story that may genuinely be problematic (though I think it’s naive to believe either the Israelis or Hamas haven’t engaged in sexual violence given its prevalence in warzones), and 2) reporting on a manufactured war that’s now nearly 30 years old.

It’s absurd to think you can hold the current NYT to account for actions done so long ago that many of their current journalists wouldn’t have been borne yet.

That’s not to say the NYT doesn’t have it’s problems. It is absolutely a both-sidesism establishment paper. But if you’re gonna criticize it, at least do so with modern examples.

There are more beginners then there are experts, so in the absence of research a beginner UI is a safer bet.

If you’re in the business of creating high quality UX, and you’re building a UI without even the most basic research–understanding your target user–you’ve already failed.

And yes, if you definite “beginner” to be someone with expert training and experience, then yes an expert UI would be better for that “beginner”. What a strange way to define “beginner” though.

If I’m building a product that’s targeting software developers, a “beginner” has a very different definition than if I’m targeting grade school children, and the UX considerations will be vastly different.

This is, like, first principles of product development stuff, here.

Unless you’ve actually done the user research, you have no idea if a “beginner friendly UX is a safer bet” . It’s just a guess. Sometimes it’s a good guess. Sometimes it’s not. The correct answer is always “it depends”.

Hell, whether or not a form full of fields is or isn’t “beginner” friendly is even debatable given the world “beginner” is context-specific. Without knowing who that user is, their background, their training, and the work context, you have no way of knowing for sure. You just have a bunch of assumptions you’re making.

As for the rest, human data entry that cannot be automated is incredibly common, regardless of your personal feelings about it. If you’ve walked into a government office, healthcare setting, legal setting, etc, and had someone ask you a bunch of questions, you might be surprised to hear that the odds are very good that human was punching your answers into a computer.