I stand by my head canon that Galaxy class ships are equipped to deposit saucers on planets to establish starter colonies. It's already basically a floating city in space.

I'm glad somebody else has brought up that TWoK sort of feels at odds with Trek despite being the best of the films. However, I say it is still the best Trek movie because:

It focuses on the characters who know from Star Trek, and their growth, change, loss, and acceptance is critical to the story. While the things that happen to them aren't limited to Trek characters, Kirk, Spock, et al. were the definition of "Star Trek" at the time.

The militaristic aspects aren't totally foreign to Star Trek. While exploration was always at the forefront of their mission, Starfleet was (as Carol Marcus pointed out) still a military organization. What has happened is that the exploration/scientific aspects in the story have been initially shifted to Dr. Marcus.

The sci-fi aspects and story telling are still very strong, it's just that Kirk and Khan shooting each other in a nebula is so great that we forget they're there.

• What are the ramifications of a device like Genesis, which puts a civilization even closer to the ability to "play god?" Is every tool that can create also doomed to be a weapon that can destroy?
• How does a future society balance the often competing goals of scientific exploration with military power, especially given something like Genesis?
• What responsibilities do we have when we decide to "play god" within a much smaller microcosm such as Khan's people. Kirk presumed he was doing the right and just thing by setting them up on a planet but never returned to check on them. Was he responsible for what happened to Khan as a result?

The increased breathing room of a full motion picture that doesn't have to delve into the backgrounds of the characters we already know gives the story room to breath, and unlike TOS we have time to let events that aren't driven strictly by the "gimmick" of the scifi aspect intermingle and impact with the plot device(s).

I still hold that TMP is the most "Trek" of the movies, but TWoK is the best of the movies while still being sufficiently "Trek."

You don’t need to. It might even help you figure out if you’d like Lower Decks.

Meta is Facebook’s parent company and Threads is their Twitter competitor. It doesn’t yet, but will soon support activitypub which means it can talk to the rest of the Mastodon servers.

The worries range from Meta using this to destroy the fediverse via embrace, extend, extinguish, to moral objections, and more.

Similar to how we refer to TOS episodes as "The Nazi Planet" and "The Gangster Planet" this one will be "The Alzheimer's Planet."

I like that the original away mission failing wasn't some weird magical thing - it was just a mission that went bad in a fairly mundane way.

If they defederate does that prevent following specific users on threads once activitypub goes live?

I agree with a lot of your concerns. Two medical staff taking drugs and beating a mob of Klingons senseless with little hesitation and no apparent ramifications is horribly, horribly out of tone with what I’ve come to expect from Trek.

Spock is another issue. I’m fine with him undergoing growth and having a full character arc - but I really don’t see this Spock becoming the one in TOS — a Spock who disobeyed direct orders from Starfleet and was reluctantly able to potentially kill two crew members goes on to have the disastrous experience as leader in the Galileo Seven? Best I can see is he actively goes as hard as he can on suppressing his human side in the near future but that wouldn’t make him suddenly forget what emotions, illogic, and all that human baggage feels like when he’s interacting with humans later in his career.

(And for the record - I really enjoy Ethan Peck as Spock and watching his struggles with his emotional control. I just don’t feel like it’s the same character as in TOS and don’t see how he’d get there.)

It’s a fun place to tinker with UNIX in an actual shared system like it was designed, and everybody seems pretty chill so im fairly active on mastodon, com, and now Lemmy.

None of us know what we’re doing and it’s wonderful

I'd love to use Emacs, but I've been using vi since 1996. I can't figure out how to quit.

What makes hardware “retro” is certainly an interesting question. This machine is 24 years old, although I’m using it to recreate an experience closer to thirty years old.

At the same the Pentium III came out, the Apple II line would have been 22 years old. Was the Apple II considered “retro” in 1999? It was only six years discontinued at that point…

I think retro will invariably be the generation of computer the person in question used as a youth. Maybe.