[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 44 points 5 months ago

Normandy. Launching attacks on fascists for 80 years.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 43 points 6 months ago

Which explains why it was standard procedure for presidents to put their money in a blind trust. And why Trump didn't.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 52 points 7 months ago

As disappointing as it is to see it end, 5 seasons is a decent run, and I'd rather it end before they "jump the shark" or just fizzle out.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 40 points 8 months ago

I can see the argument from a certain perspective of the language, outside of context.

But remember when this amendment was passed. Right after the Civil War.

So, they wanted an amendment to bar traitors from federal office. Then they put in a section saying Congress has to actually make laws enforcing that rule, or it does nothing. And then, they didn't make any such laws?!

So, what, they went through all the work to make a constitutional amendment, and then it does nothing?

No, they clearly felt that the rule was clear enough as it was, and section 5 is there to allow Congress to make supporting laws built upon that to help enforce that rule. But that rule should have teeth on its own.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 82 points 10 months ago

"Donald Trump is a scab."

Trump would be a scab, but he's never worked a day in his life.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 117 points 10 months ago

Should Jon Stewart run for POTUS? No.

Would I vote for Jon Stewart if he ran for POTUS? Probably.

This says less about my faith in Jon's ability to govern, and more about my lack of faith in current politicians to lead ethically.

I'd rather see Jon make the right decisions but make mistakes, than to see a seasoned politician make the wrong decisions and execute them competently.

I at least have faith Jon is smart enough and with a true compassion in his heart, that he'd be able to surround himself with real experts, listen open mindedly to their advice, and regularly make decisions with empathy.

All that said, he's said repeatedly he doesn't want that job, and I do not blame him.

25
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by ApostleO@startrek.website to c/daystrominstitute@startrek.website

Excuse me if this post isn't up to the usual standards of Daystrom Institute, but as I'm looking for an in-universe discussion of this topic, this community felt the most appropriate.

Does anyone else feel like the Temporal Prime Directive is a potential security risk? You're a security officer, and you find an intruder on board. Before you can call it in, they implore you "Stop! Temporal Prime Directive! This is important!"

Now you've paused, thinking any action could cause a temporal paradox, or damage to the future timeline.

Hell, just that pause alone might be enough for them to draw a weapon on you and neutralize you, if they are hostile.

But, assuming they don't attack, suppose the intruder says "I can't tell you what I'm doing or why, but just know it's imperative, and I have to remain hidden. Please go about your business and ignore me."

You're in a catch 22. If you leave them be, it could turn out they are an enemy spy or saboteur. If you report them, it could turn out they are telling the truth, and you cause a big temporal problem.

This question is inspired by VOY S05E24, "Relativity", where Seven of Nine is sent back in time to Voyager (before she had joined the crew), and she gets caught and confronted by Janeway. Ultimately, Janeway doesn't just take Seven at her word, and makes her explain what's going on, but I'm not sure we should be taking cues on the proper application of the Temporal Prime Directive from Captain Kathryn Janeway.

What are your thoughts?

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 85 points 10 months ago

Well that is scary.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 37 points 11 months ago

I mean, they are smiling in the last panel.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 39 points 1 year ago

It's my head-canon conspiracy theory that the true workings of the transporter are hidden/obfuscated, even from the technicians and engineers, to avoid the existential dread of facing the truth: you die, and then it clones you.

All these systems to make it appear as if it's a single, consistent matter stream, to leave room for the possibility of a consistent consciousness or even soul. It all falls apart in light of William Riker. You can't duplicate matter. The only feasible explanation is that they got his scan, and successfully materialized him, but the signal that would have disintegrated the original failed.

Tuvix died because people couldn't accept how many times they had technically killed their colleagues, or commited suicide.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 41 points 1 year ago

The in-universe answer re: drones would be that people want to explore. Sure, it's dangerous, but it's also exciting, fascinating, and fulfilling. That said, I feel like a responsible captain would make much more extensive use of probes than any of the shows.

Re: data streams, I don't have a good in-universe explanation. I have a similar question of why they don't have security cameras in all the hallways and public areas.

Also, using the transporter to go down to a planet always runs the risk of some storm or an orbital threat stranding your party. Why not use the shuttle as SOP? It gives your away team more resources, both for their mission and for an emergency.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 46 points 1 year ago

Borg were scarier before the concept of the Queen.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 38 points 1 year ago

It's my strong opinion that the pardon of Nixon is directly responsible for the current state of partisan politics in the US.

If he had been held accountable then, we wouldn't be dealing with half of our politicians arguing that the president is above the law.

view more: next ›

ApostleO

joined 1 year ago