astronaut_sloth

This is a great analogy

If Kamala would have spent half the time she spent talking about Trump, talking about corporate price gouging instead and how she would go after corporations like a bulldog, voters would have had a place to look for blame other than the Democrats.

I agree. It was really frustrating that she wasn't hammering this home. BUT I still don't think that it would have really moved the needle that much. Same with Palestine. Same with Biden dropping out earlier. Same with being a bit fuzzy on details. So on and so forth.

In the end, the American people wanted Trump the person. He has no economic messaging besides a nebulous idea of "fixing" the economy through tariffs, which is laughable. People who use the economic anxiety argument are either trying to deflect blame from themselves for voting for him ("I don't like him as a person, but he has good policies.") or because they want to believe in the fundamental goodness of their fellow Americans so that their choices can be rationally explained. The former is deluding themselves since Trump has no cogent economic policy. As for the latter, I get why they want to believe that, but the truth is a lot uglier. The majority of Americans either affirmatively approve of or tacitly tolerate Trump's authoritarian tendencies and/or are simply too uneducated (or just plainly stupid) or (if I'm being extremely charitable) woefully misinformed or uninformed to understand the gravity of his election.

I'm tempted to blame the Democratic party and nitpick, but at the end of the day, Harris ran a good campaign. It wasn't perfect, but even if it were, we'd still more or less be here. The core problem, I think, lies in our culture and our educational system. Trump was a uniquely awful candidate, and Harris was a competent, "standard" politician. By all measures, she should have won. Even still, the American public repudiated her, which is simply irrational. In the end, it comes down Trump being the symptom not the problem. The problem lies in our culture and society.

tl;dr: Even if Harris did message better, she still would have lost. American culture and society is flawed and ultimately at fault.

This is what's getting me. If he won via electoral college or couping, I'd be angry and ready to do the work to pull the country out of this mess and end Trumpism once and for all. But instead, he won the popular vote. People in the United States saw a wannabe-autocrat who was specifically called a fascist by his own officers who admitted to being a dictator "on day one" among so many other things. After seeing that, a majority of people either affirmatively supported the fascist candidate by voting for him, or they are tolerant enough of it to sit at home and not vote or vote for a third party knowing the outcome. And that really just makes me lose faith in my country and the people, and so I'm just sad knowing that this country actively chose this outcome.

What's worse is that I really don't feel a strong desire to try to change anything since it'll just fall on deaf ears at best. More to the point, I don't even want to hear "their side" or "their reasons" for why they voted the way they did because no matter the rationale they give, it will come down to them being comfortable with oppression of minorities and autocracy. I always want to believe the best of people, but after today, I really can't anymore.

Young men may be drawn to Trump because he pushes against societal pressure that men need to be apologetic for being themselves.

"Not being apologetic for being [myself]" is why I'm voting for Harris. I swear that conservatives want everyone to fit into confining, pre-defined boxes for everything. I found that among conservatives, I've always had to "apologize" for not being hyper-masculine and interested in "softer" and "feminine" things.

If someone is very masculine, that's cool, too. No one is saying that you can't be hyper-masculine if that's what you're into. BUT if you constantly are apologizing for "being yourself," maybe you're just an asshole trying to hide behind masculinity.

Yes! "AI" defined as only LLMs and the party trick applications is a bubble. AI in general has been around for decades and will only continue to grow.

See, this is part of his long con. Clarence knows his wife is crazy, so instead of divorcing her, he's just going to make their marriage illegal. /s

This right here. I liked how TNG did it. Series premier bring an oldster in to launch, maybe have a special episode or two with another.

If we really wanted Colm back, have it in the premier of Starfleet Academy where the new cadets are going through a hall of distinguished professors and have an elderly O'Brien do a cameo with a sample of one of his lectures. Nice to connect the show to lore and nostalgia but short enough to let the new cast stand on their own.

That said, I agree with Colm. Let O'Brien stay as he is. He had a perfect send-off.

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.