FriendOfDeSoto

Starfleet is not good at operational security. Why does the landing party contain half or more department heads? I would start there, either by revamping their guidelines or as viewers suspending disbelief.

I think the shuttle solution is elegant and I'm sure a writers room has discussed it. Today this would be (comparatively) trivially easy to CGI; I suppose during TOS it would have necessitated extra work days for the model unit and a permanent shuttle set, which I don't think we get until TNG.

Several aspects of the universe were developed over time and several writers will have been involved. The insane scarcity of spots for the academy is something from early TNG that pretty much falls by the wayside later on and goes unremarked. Like Chief O'Brian starts off as a nameless con/nav officer with lieutenant pips and then somehow becomes a non-com with a rich war history, a wife that hates him, and a child lost in time temporarily.

They needed to keep the Wheaton out lukewarm in case the child actor wanted out or had to go for another reason. So they dangled his acceptance to the academy in front of us so it wouldn't be a surprise when they finally got rid of the boy (the boy?). It's a bit far fetched that super warp genius tapped to become a traveler of space and time would not get in as many times as he didn't, for various questionable reasons.

You have just landed on the only angle that could get me to watch a movie about bitcoin: macabre schadenfreude.

I read through that last link and then the first comment is asking why this AI wall of text. There is also very little evidence meat on that bone. A user did this, a user got that. That's not receipts, that's just more claims.

The claims of censorship are non sensical to me. You can still post most of that stuff, just not on that instance. An instance isn't a democracy and no one has the right to be heard there no matter what. Your right is to go elsewhere. It's a living room sofa problem. If you came to my house and took a dump on my sofa, I'd kick you out too. As it is my house, I get to decide what constitutes a dump. You thought it was just a fart, I smelled a shart - you're out anyway. You are free to go sit on somebody else's sofa. Go somewhere else, vote with your feet. Sure, tell others about my tight ass sofa rules. You still haven't convinced me of your OG conclusion.

I'm still not excluding the possibility that there is something rotten in the state of Lemmy dot world. Maybe that admin is indeed on a power trip. What a decade on reddit and now a few years on Lemmy have shown me is that most bans are not shot from the hip. "I just said maybe Israel isn't so nice and got banned IMMEDIATELY," professed the user innocently. And then the admin comes back with three documented community violations including threatening the moderators with violence. Exceptions are rare. If you had a "no violence" rule, then "death to Zionists" would be functionally the same as "death to all little old ladies," a no-go. You don't get to decide what constitutes a dump and since the fediverse is larger than Lemmy dot world you're also not being censored.

The people who fact check news for a living are journalists. They exist on a spectrum from dubious to trustworthy. You'll have you find some that you like.

While it is possible today to check a lot of stuff yourself online, you can't do it all. And if you are, you already are doing a journalist's job.

I was looking for something similar late last year. I dare say there is no good and FOSS solution right now on Android.

Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?

The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don't place these terms into enough context. And context matters.

I don't know if you're right. You might be. I'm not excluding that possibility.

No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It's much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.

If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I'm going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it's not just a question of values. It's could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It's much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they're breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn't opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don't think it's justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.

From the way you phrased that, I suspect you already have a opinion and you're not looking for a reasonable debate. New account also just for this one. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

They don't wake up one morning and yell small government. The more liberal social frog inside of you will also get boiled eventually by imperceptible temperature changes in the water over a long time. Conservative thinking isn't generally synonymous with xenophobia. It's more about low taxes, no handouts to anyone, tough on crime, that sort of thing. The xenophobia aspect is a perversion of that, which sadly isn't uncommon but not a forgone conclusion generally speaking. The fact that the MAGAs have made this synonymous with conservative thinking in the US speaks to the success of their movement built on fear, lies, hate, and generations worth of people failed by their education system.

Many reasons. The older one gets, the more stuff if not wealth one has acquired, the more one stands to lose. That has most people make a turn for conservative viewpoints if they weren't there already.

Also, as the Peter Principle in the workplace (I paraphrase: everybody gets eventually promoted to a position they are not qualified to do well) old people get to an age where they overestimate their worldly knowledge.

Getting old is shit. Your joints hurt, hair grows out of weird spots, people around you move to farms upstate. Things you loved from when you were crisp and shiny get swept by the wayside by progress. You have a lot more to complain about now because you also have more time for it. And you wait an awful lot at doctor's clinics.

Not all people do all of these things all the time but there average person will tick at least two of these broad boxes. There is nothing you can do really. Listen but don't take to heart the crap. I draw a line at right-wing politics and hurtful -isms. If my parents didn't cross into that territory I turned my head into an extractor fan.

When you were little, they wiped shit out of your ass crack and worried about you when you were sick. As a bonus they now get you annoy you. The circle of life.

I get it, you're okay with it. And I would allow then to continue funding it if their environmental conscience demanded it. And if they sailed there or even flew economy I'd still allow them to pull a trigger themselves. But I think overall this idea that rich and most likely Caucasian asshole money is required to keep conservation projects in Africa going smacks of a school of post colonial thinking that I don't subscribe to. Africans are not solely motivated by asshole money to preserve their ecosystems.

As I said, I agree with you. As another commenter said, big tobacco lied and got caught and punished. Big booze hasn't risen to quite that level. Additionally and unfortunately, alcoholics and gambling addicts are probably a relatively small part of the population and less likely to vote. And politics is a numbers game. We live in a relatively fucked up world. Where convicted sexual assaulters can still be president. Where the only person convicted from a pedophile gang is a woman. And where you need to be stronger than most of us to not fall off the wagon. But you can translate this justified anger into political change. This must be an issue that has an action group in politics somewhere, which you could seek out and support.