FriendOfDeSoto

Grammar is only done by design in the realms of Tokkien, Martin, or Star Trek. For naturally occurring ones, the spoken language comes first, then the grammar in an effort to standardize it. So a design flaw in grammar is bit of an oxymoron for me.

Cultural norms have an influence on grammar. About 400 years ago people in England still distinguished between a familiar you (thou) and a polite you (you). And over time decided to be polite only and only retained the thous and the thees in archaic expressions. And caused the need to disambiguate the plural from the singular you with new pronouns. Japanese grammar tends to get longer the more polite and humble you want to speak. So I don't think your can divide culture from grammar neatly. Both of them make the hypothetical exchange I made up 5x as long.

You can't construct grammar on an established language like English. If the speakers are used to having pronouns everywhere, like most if not all Germanic languages, then no. You cannot just leave them out.

It's my experience that this OCD level of politeness the Japanese apply to all interactions is a hindrance to getting a point across. Yes, you have to use your brain and infer who does what and to whom. But that means that there is still an awful lot of uncertainty. And uncertainty in the language leaves the door open to misinterpretation. So while a group of Japanese folks are playing politeness ping-pong for fifteen minutes, the parallel English universe dealing with the same topic are done after three. "You do that now!" Done. The Japanese would be clutching their pearls at that directness.

In ye olden days, telegrams (not the contemporary chat app but the wire service they took the name from) would use streamlined language dropping any unnecessary pronoun as well. This was done a a cost saving measure when you were charged by the word. So you need a trigger, a restriction that kicks off a grammar change like that. But it didn't last.

You didn't learn anything today.

Putting somebody on the stand doesn't mean they're on trial. Witnesses tend to be as public as the rest of the trial. So this could be not public at all due to factors like children having to give testimony or state security being on the line. I'm sure there are more reasons and those may differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Or the trial is public.

There may be rules to safeguard the identity of witnesses, such as principal witnesses who just by speaking out endanger their lives (e.g. in organized crime). A vigilante is by definition doing illegal stuff so they may refuse to give evidence based on the fact they would have to incriminate themselves. But I don't think any court would entertain the idea of having a Batman figure in costume take the stand to give evidence. By protecting the identity the court would tacitly approve of illegal vigilantism. That probably only works in comic books.

Wouldn't another possibility be active fare dodging? And if they do that, can't they just fill the station and trains with so many people until they are forced to run the train to manage the crowd? I imagine all able people will go piggyback through turnstiles to half the fare at least.

In terms of potentially fineable behavior, this might be safer than creating an ad hoc ped xing on an interstate.

Maybe the NJ locals need to weigh in on how likely the constabulary will be to make use of their firearms in such a situation.

You'd probably have to doxx yourself a bit to have a chance of a good answer.

Like @Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com suggested, it's probably the future orbital debris that will keep us trapped on this planet no matter what, i.e. satellites. More specifically the ones for internet service in low orbit. When they move into position they often move in a string of pearls formation.

So it's that, aliens, or the unimpressive prelude to our armageddon.

Is this a new account asking 500 questions in a single post? Are you AI? What even are you? Why is living suffering?

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

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.