zaphod

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Alright, since someone needs to be the canon pedant: akshully she drank chamomile and occasionally mint tea on the show.

zaphod, 1 month ago

You probably didn’t recently rewatch the whole show like I did!

It’s one of the affectations she picked up while living in the Vulcan colony on earth. Part of her arc is she’s not a particularly “good” Vulcan and the tea is one of the little tells.

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Funny, I feel the same way about Fallout and The Witcher. Just… don’t get the appeal. As always, to each their own. Hence why I generally try to avoid yucking other people’s yums.

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Ahh yes, the old “sticks and stones” defense that completely ignores human nature and basic decency. I use the same logic when I tell other people their babies are ugly. “Look, if you ask me your kid is an eyesore but it’s just my opinion so I don’t know why you’re so mad right now…”

zaphod, 1 month ago

It’s all about tone. The original comment was incredibly combative and hyperbolic (“I utterly loathe Mass Effect. I consider it one of the worst pieces of science-fiction ever created.”) so much so that it would easily be mistaken for flamebait given the thread was likely to attract fans of the series.

It certainly didn’t strike me as the start of an open-minded conversation.

But in hindsight I should’ve just downvoted and moved on rather than commenting as I did, so that’s on me.

zaphod, 1 month ago

I don’t. Played with it a bit but as a capable writer and coder I don’t find it fills a need and just shifts the effort from composition (which I enjoy) to editing and review (which I don’t).

zaphod, 1 month ago

Oh please. The anti-TikTok hysteria has been going on much longer than the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and the narrative has largely been about national security concerns, particularly as they relate to election misinformation.

Agree or not with the anti-China rhetoric about TikTok, but at least argue about the facts and not inane conspiracy theories.

zaphod, 1 month ago

On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it’s found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

You’re missing my point.

In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that’s the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it’s the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.

That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I’m wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn’t apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I’m not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there’s OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).

To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I’m saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it’s not an obvious slam dunk.

zaphod, 1 month ago

See my reply to your sibling comment. This is wishful thinking. You could be right, but it’s just as likely (I’d argue more likely) you’re wrong.

zaphod, 1 month ago

I couldn’t agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.

But the discussion isn’t about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it’s not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.

zaphod, 1 month ago

Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.

In what way does that invalidate it as an example?

The executive cannot just declare something punitive.

CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.

Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.

Bytedance isn’t inside your borders and the constitution doesn’t protect extra-nationals. There’s a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.

I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:

CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user’s location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.

Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn’t count as “critical infrastructure”?

(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).

(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.

So again. Not personal use.

LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:

To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.

So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.

Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.

But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.

The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.

Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It’s incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don’t trade on any US stock exchanges).

TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).

The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn’t occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it’s that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.

zaphod, 1 month ago

Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn’t apply?

Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn’t realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!

zaphod, 1 month ago

Why would a court be able to “easily find this was handled improperly”?

zaphod, 1 month ago

In infrared. Titan basically looks like a brownish grey blob to the naked eye due to its incredibly dense atmosphere.

zaphod, 1 month ago

They basically remap wavelengths, so yes, absolutely those would be representative of real features, either in the atmosphere or on the ground.

That said, absolutely, sometimes there’s a bit of artistic license in how the wavelengths are mapped.

Edit: the space.com article on the image describes some of the physical features depicted:

space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-saturn-moon-…

zaphod, 1 month ago

Given for months now I keep randomly experiencing UI hangs requiring me to kill Nova, that day may have finally come…

zaphod, 1 month ago

Nope, Pixel 6 running Android 14. It’s highly variable but I’d say it happens… every two or three days, sometimes multiple times a day. To say it’s aggravating is putting it very mildly.

zaphod, 1 month ago

My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market.

Yes, but: why is the market in the state it’s in? It couldn’t be because a large supply of housing is locked up by landlords, thereby artificially curtailing supply and driving up prices…

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Never had any ambition or dreams that was greater than 1 life time

Nope. That way lies delusions of grandeur. Life is short and I’d rather focus on living it today rather than worrying about a “legacy” I’ll never experience.

If you want any part of you to achieve something past the one life you have, children are the only way ambition can continue

And that way lies the kind of entitlement that leads parents to think their children’s lives are their own.

You aren’t achieving anything past your life. Your kids are. Their ambition is theirs, not yours. Stop thinking you can take credit for it.

zaphod, 1 month ago

And I 1000% Believe my mom and her mom can take partial credit for my achievements.

And I’ll all but guarantee you they did those things simply because they love you, not because of some grandiose idea of a “legacy” or a desperate need to live beyond their death.

Planning for the future in order to care for your family and friends is an expression of love, not ambition.

zaphod, 1 month ago

Now I’m certain you’re just making up reasons to be mad.

Spock is repeatedly depicted as being an established expert across a truly improbable range of topics (including, of all things, brain reattachment surgery). Spock is to basically everything else what Kirk is to “talking computers into killing themselves”.

If you can accept that you can accept Pulaski.

zaphod, 1 month ago

It would’ve certainly made a lot more sense! Which, granted, for that episode is a fairly low bar (as much as I love it for it’s campy absurdity).

zaphod, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

No, Spock guided him through the back half of the surgery when the effects of the teacher wore off. He literally told him which instruments to use (oh that tri-laser connector!) and how to proceed. Here’s the dialog:

SPOCK: If you will finish reconnecting my speech centre, I might be able to help.

MCCOY: Speech centre.

SPOCK: Yes. That’s correct. One thing at a time. Ah, ah, mmm. (normal voice) That’s better. Now, Doctor. Try the sonic separator.

MCCOY: Sonic separator.

SPOCK: Yes, I believe I already have some sensation of feeling. Please stimulate the nerve endings and observe the physical reactions, one by one. In each case, I shall tell you when the probe is correct. You will then seal using the tri-laser connector.

MCCOY: Tri-laser connector. Ready?

SPOCK: Ready.

Of course, what the text fails to convey is McCoy’s hesitation and confusion, or Spock’s confidence as he instructs him on how to complete the surgery.

I… watch far too much TOS…

Edit:

By the way, there is one bit of headcanon, here, that could explain this specific example, so yes, I’m gonna undermine my own point, but hey, what’s a pedantic conversation about Trek without circling back and contradicting oneself??

So, the one bit of headcanon is: Spock seems to have had access to the knowledge of the people of Sigma Draconis, given that at the end he starts lecturing the group about the history of those people, with knowledge he presumably acquired by being wired up as the Controller. So maybe he also had full access to the knowledge of the teacher, including the knowledge needed to reattach a brain.

Have I mentioned I watch far too much TOS?