This is why I believe scientists should be required to take liberal arts classes; especially related to written and spoken language.

And yes, I also think liberal arts students should be required to take some level of hard STEM classes (not watered-down “libarts-compatible” stuff, but actual physics, chemistry, biology, etc) as well.

Yes to both points! I'm eternally grateful to my high school AP English teachers for teaching me how to write and communicate.

My somewhat unpopular opinion is that we'd be better off as a society if everyone in college took "real" STEM and liberal arts classes. The STEM folks can understand the why and societal implications of what they study (as well as just communication), and the liberal arts types can learn a bit about how the world actually works in a concrete way.

Unfortunately, I've been continually struck by how incurious people are. I get that everyone has their interests, but that shouldn't be to the exclusion of all other study. So, I don't think this will happen. :/

Or class

I tend to agree and give a ton of leeway to stupid, offensive stuff from years past that people have evolved from. We all said and did stupid stuff that we regret. However, this isn't offensive, and that's to highlight that Vance either A. regressed in his values from being normal to being weirdly pro-hyper-traditional gender roles or B. has no true beliefs and is just saying what he says because he thinks it wins him votes.

Yeah, they'll probably have to check everything. Though, I wonder if even just checking that everything is good to go would save time from manually re-writing it all. While it may not be a smashing success, it could still prove useful.

I dunno, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

I think this is an interesting idea. If they're able to pull it off, I think it will cement the usefulness of LLMs. I have my doubts, but it's worth trying. I'd imagine that the LLM is specially tuned to be more adept at this task. Your bog-standard GPT-4 or Claude will probably be unreliable.

Yes-ish. The characters were villains, but the organization wasn't necessarily. For instance, in Discovery season 2, Leland and his crew were the villains, but Section 31 was portrayed less as an extremist cabal and more as a misguided morally-grey organization. Less a blight upon the Federation and more an uncomfortable, but integral, part of it.

@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world captures it well. Instead of being a cabal of extremists doing illegal and immoral things because they think they're connected to a higher purpose, they're a semi-official CIA-like organization.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Section 31 isn't supposed to be a cool or semi-legitimate organization (with ships, insignia, etc.) but rather shadowy and absolutely beyond the pale of legitimacy where very few can stomach what they do. From an artistic/thematic POV, Section 31 should be there to show us that a good society requires work to maintain and that its undoing can come from within by those claiming to protect it by eschewing that society's values. In other words, the ends don't justify the means.

It should be a conspiracy of like-minded individuals that exists parasitically within Starfleet, not an official (or an “unofficial official” agency).

I agree. When 31 was first introduced, and Sloan explained that Section 31 was sanctioned by Starfleet under Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet Charter, the implication was that they were people who misinterpreted or construed a (probably minor) part of the Starfleet Charter and used it to justify damn near anything.

Personally, I hate how Section 31 has been changed to be misunderstood, cool good guy/anti-hero types who are doing the wrong things for the right reason. DS9 had it right with portraying them as the villains within who should be snuffed out because the ends don't justify the means.

I can see the allure for places wanting to keep certain trouble-makers out as a precaution, but this gets so close to a privatized social credit score that it's beyond uncomfortable.

Same. SNW has been an interesting pattern for me. The powers that be will make creative decisions that I find dubious when announced (Kirk, musical episode, La'an being related to Khan), but each time, the show pulls it off. I think Paul Wesley has done a really good job, "Subspace Rhapsody" is just so much fun, and La'an is literally my favorite character on SNW.

I’m 100% in favor of me being a dictator for life

This right here. Even as a kid studying history, I never understood why someone would support a dictator. When I was like 9 or 10, we were learning about WW2 or something, and I said, "Wait, Mrs. <History Teacher>, you're saying people wanted Hitler to be a dictator and voted for him? Why would someone give up the possibility of being leader themselves?!" I couldn't comprehend how someone wouldn't want to at least have the possibility of having supreme executive authority.

Like, if it were me in charge, then I'm all for it, but some other person? HELLLLLLLL NO! It could be Gary down the block, and he's an asshole.

Depends on your skills. Documentation is always useful. If you have language skills, translation of documentation or helping create language packs/translations.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with more.

Tu as raison. Mon avis n'a pas changé. Trump est le pire de ce pays, mais l'americain moyen pense différemment.

I noticed that, too, but I just chalk that up to people freezing (fight, flight, freeze).

Je suis américain, et c'est aussi ma pensée. Malheureusement, je crois que Trump vient de gagner cette élection. Personne ne peut répondre quand il dit: «J'ai pris une balle pour le pays.» Aucune attaque politique contre lui ne peut réussir maintenant.

I think what they're getting at is that we're uncertain the extent age will affect his duties. Will his cabinet and other advisors be really "in control," or will Biden insist on his way forcing others to kowtow. It is certain that the dude is old as hell and if it were he alone, he would be incapable of the job. Since there's a staff and a ton of advisors, the degree of control they have is, well, uncertain.

The water is already 208 degrees man.

Not wrong.

Honestly, that 180 day window thing is nominal. The execution of all of that will take way longer with all of the litigation that would happen, and it'll take a couple of years to get it all enacted (slow at first then accelerating as more gets enacted).

Personally, I'd prefer if it were fast. The sudden change would wake people up, and cause way more civil unrest. If it's slow, we end up as frogs slowly boiling. Fewer people will protest or cause issues if things unfold slowly. It's the idea of the frog in the boiling water. If the changes are swift, there's a higher chance of ordinary people taking notice and fighting to reverse them.

I've found this to be the case a lot, too. I also spoof my OS because a lot of government sites will refuse to work unless it says Windows. It's stupid, but here we are.

C'est complètement dérangé.

Oui, mais le mien était stupide. On a même utilisé Red Hat pour les serveurs, mais nos postes de travail (c'est le bon mot ?) ne pouvaient pas avoir des logiciels libres. Fanchement, le départment d'informatique était très mauvais. C'est une raison pour laquelle je suis parti.