In other words, Phoenix, you have your opinion, and are completely uninterested in any information that might contradict it.
As we already knew.
No, what I am uninterested in is getting trolled about not being able to see DSC season three yet and the false inference that since I have not see the third season that my observations about the seasons I have seen are somehow invalidated by it.
I do not understand the idiotic binary thinking that holds that there are only two pigeonholes, those who think DSC is absolute perfection and those who irrationally hate it for being new. I have news for those binary thinkers: it does not really work that way.
I will eventually get around to seeing season three, I don't hate it like some people think I must since I commit the heresy of criticizing parts of it, I just don't think it is worth getting a subscription just for maybe two or three series which are fairly good but not significantly better than shows I can see already at no extra cost.
The world is shades of gray, people can like shows and still dislike or be disappointed by parts of those same shows, get over it.
No, what I am uninterested in is getting trolled about not being able to see DSC season three yet and the false inference that since I have not see the third season that my observations about the seasons I have seen are somehow invalidated by it.
They are invalid by virtue of not having seen it. You can't make valid observations on something you haven't seen before. That's how it works anywhere. You can't accurately judge something you haven't experienced for yourself.
Totally false. Give an engineer a diagram of a badly designed system/bridge/whatever, and they can point it out to you without ever seeing the actual thing, even tell you where it is likely to fail without knowing where it failed. We trust juries to render a fair judgement, a bunch of people who didn't witness the crime. Science and the concept of peer review is utterly based on someone not connected with the observations looking over them to see if they seem valid.
Of course they can be wrong, but they also aren't saddled by any emotional biases.
I do not understand the idiotic binary thinking that holds that there are only two pigeonholes, those who think DSC is absolute perfection and those who irrationally hate it for being new. I have news for those binary thinkers: it does not really work that way.
No one thinks this way. This is just your straw man. The problem is that almost everything you say has no basis in fact since you haven't seen the show to know what happens in it.
You do. You and others repeatedly claimed that I have some hatred of ST:D when I've repeatedly stated otherwise. My criticisms have not been at any of the acting or the general scripts outside of the scenes I've been able to watch.
If you'll remember I praised just about everything about the Empress Blinky scene, other than the concept. That was one of the stupidest ideas ever. That it was well shot and well acted doesn't change the fact it was insanely stupid, but I also didn't need to see it to tell you that concept was stupid.
I don't need to know how well acted Saru is, to have heard any of the dialogue between him and Sukal, or to have seen any second of the CGI to tell you the cause of the Burn is absurd. None of that affects how ridiculous the cause of the Burn is.
None of that helps me form an opinion on the show itself either, which I have been clear about. I can only know they have some really bad ideas that they shove into it.
No, what I am uninterested in is getting trolled about not being able to see DSC season three yet and the false inference that since I have not see the third season that my observations about the seasons I have seen are somehow invalidated by it.
They are invalid by virtue of not having seen it. You can't make valid observations on something you haven't seen before. That's how it works anywhere. You can't accurately judge something you haven't experienced for yourself.
Totally false. Give an engineer a diagram of a badly designed system/bridge/whatever, and they can point it out to you without ever seeing the actual thing, even tell you where it is likely to fail without knowing where it failed. We trust juries to render a fair judgement, a bunch of people who didn't witness the crime. Science and the concept of peer review is utterly based on someone not connected with the observations looking over them to see if they seem valid.
Of course they can be wrong, but they also aren't saddled by any emotional biases.
It depends on the science whether it is based on someone connected with the observations or not. There is no way to prove numerous theories put out by Theoretical Physicists since we don't have the technology for it for decades or longer. Other sciences require numerous scientists to verify that the results observed in an experiment are duplicated. If only one group of scientists can observe the results while all other groups, then there is something wrong with the experiment which is usually due to lying or neglect.
No, what I am uninterested in is getting trolled about not being able to see DSC season three yet and the false inference that since I have not see the third season that my observations about the seasons I have seen are somehow invalidated by it.
They are invalid by virtue of not having seen it. You can't make valid observations on something you haven't seen before. That's how it works anywhere. You can't accurately judge something you haven't experienced for yourself.
Totally false. Give an engineer a diagram of a badly designed system/bridge/whatever, and they can point it out to you without ever seeing the actual thing, even tell you where it is likely to fail without knowing where it failed. We trust juries to render a fair judgement, a bunch of people who didn't witness the crime. Science and the concept of peer review is utterly based on someone not connected with the observations looking over them to see if they seem valid.
Of course they can be wrong, but they also aren't saddled by any emotional biases.
It depends on the science whether it is based on someone connected with the observations or not. There is no way to prove numerous theories put out by Theoretical Physicists since we don't have the technology for it for decades or longer. Other sciences require numerous scientists to verify that the results observed in an experiment are duplicated. If only one group of scientists can observe the results while all other groups, then there is something wrong with the experiment which is usually due to lying or neglect.
Absolutely, its a major problem in science right now, non-reproduceable results and corruption in the peer review process. The point though, is that the system is based on someone looking over the work to find errors and inconsistences with no connection to the experiments or data.
An engineer who built bridges in the 18th century would dismiss Vancouver, BC's Port Mann bridge as an impossible fairy dream - not because he was a poor engineer, but because he would be unaware of advances in materials technology since his day.
Phoenix cannot reliably comment on Season 3 of DSC, because they remain ignorant (by choice, in this case) of changes in construction of the stories. A story, after all, is not a simple stone bridge - techniques used to assemble them change over time. Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake would be unrecognizable to Murasaki Shikibu, author of The Tale of Genji, not because she was a poor storyteller, but because some of the conventions Joyce used (and some of the conventions Joyce flouted) were not yet invented in her time. Similarly, the characters and situations in DSC Season 3 are not stone copies of what happened in seasons 1 and 2, but evolving (and in the case of the setting, sometimes radically changed) versions of what came before. One can no more analyze "That Hope Is You pt II" by watching "Battle at the Binary Stars" than one can analyze the behavior of the domestic chicken by observing the remains of the chicken's distant ancestor, Tyrannosaurus rex.
Absolutely, its a major problem in science right now, non-reproduceable results and corruption in the peer review process. The point though, is that the system is based on someone looking over the work to find errors and inconsistences with no connection to the experiments or data.
The problem here is that this argument assumes one has all the data to work with, in order to be able to draw an informed conclusion, or repeat the experiment with success.
When casually talking about what happens in a TV show, or movie, no one sits down and provides a doctoral thesis on every single word, scene, or action, performed. The conversation relies on having everyone involved actually having watched the program beforehand, to know basic facts of the situation which generally don't need repeating.
Not having watched the show or movie just results in situations like Phoenixc, where damn near everything he says is wrong, because he hasn't actually watched the show to understand even the basics of it, and point blank refuses to do so, but still wants to comment on it like he has the ability to do so from an informed point of view, while only using what limited aspects are discussed here. Which is like trying to recreate someone's successful experiment, when 3/4 of the data on what they did is withheld from you.
Again I'm talking specifically about things that don't require watching how the scenes play out or the acting or hearing the intonation of voice to know someone was being sarcastic or winked to imply lying or something. I made that clear.
If some idiot scientist refuses to release all their data then they get what they deserve when the reviewer and others says its junk science, because it is (even if media and politicians lie and say its good science.) Hiding data is reason enough to ignore or throw out whatever findings a scientist has presented. If you can't check it and test it, then it is not science.
An engineer who built bridges in the 18th century would dismiss Vancouver, BC's Port Mann bridge as an impossible fairy dream - not because he was a poor engineer, but because he would be unaware of advances in materials technology since his day.
Phoenix cannot reliably comment on Season 3 of DSC, because they remain ignorant (by choice, in this case) of changes in construction of the stories. A story, after all, is not a simple stone bridge - techniques used to assemble them change over time. Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake would be unrecognizable to Murasaki Shikibu, author of The Tale of Genji, not because she was a poor storyteller, but because some of the conventions Joyce used (and some of the conventions Joyce flouted) were not yet invented in her time. Similarly, the characters and situations in DSC Season 3 are not stone copies of what happened in seasons 1 and 2, but evolving (and in the case of the setting, sometimes radically changed) versions of what came before. One can no more analyze "That Hope Is You pt II" by watching "Battle at the Binary Stars" than one can analyze the behavior of the domestic chicken by observing the remains of the chicken's distant ancestor, Tyrannosaurus rex.
So time travel is required to invalidate my point? I suppose there's a point there, its something like 23rd century dictators knowing a design flaw in 32nd century holograms, right? 18th century engineers aren't even close to 20/21st century engineers in terms of knowledge and training, though. It is a terrible example in a way that is wholly different from showing some 22nd century design to a 20th century engineer.
But assuming that, then I still don't agree with your point. An engineer knows you could make a space elevator but they also know to do that you need a material that doesn't exist to handle the incredible stresses. So show them the designs for such a space elevator and they are going to look at it and say sure, its possible, if you've got the unobtanium you need. Now show them a design without various safety features, redundancies, and materials that can't handle the stress range, or other problems, and they are going to tell you its a junk design. It would be like showing them a design for a car with no brakes, or a plan to rely on solar energy with no reliable overnight power generation.
For example, this concept is absurd without even seeing the (nonexistent) design documents:
Now you might try to counter by suggesting future materials (The stresses on this thing would be way beyond anything in the near future of materials science, if it is ever physically possible to handle them.) and whatnot which could deal with the massive problems with the structural issues, systems issues, logistics issues and so on. There are a massive range of issues that make something like this likely impossible, and arguably ridiculous to consider even 1000 years from now. Still, if those various problems could be dealt with, something like this would theoretically be possible and it would be an incredible technical achievement.
There's still a glaring and basic flaw in it that no amount of future tech and materials can deal with: Orbital mechanics. Aside from the issues of simply keeping that thing in a stable orbit, for something to be in geosynchronous orbit over NYC, it has to orbit earth also going as far south as north. What is as far south as NYC is north? The Andes mountains, and you may note there is quite an altitude difference between the two places. So unless you also cut a path for that thing through every mountain range it passes over (through), you've got serious problems.
But yes, you could cut a path for it. and the engineer is going to ask why you did that when you could have just built it in geosynchronous orbit over equitorial ocean. They are going to ask why you didn't just build a space station instead, or an artificial moon, or terraform Venus, or just build something terrestrial and equally large, all of which would have been much easier projects that could offer a very similar end result. Why give yourself unnecessary problems to solve? And if those cables would snap, billions of people would die with no chance to correct the imminent disaster, unlike say an artificial moon/space station with a decaying orbit.
In any case, again I specifically was not talking about storyline or acting or anything that depends on watching the show, but the non-subjective concepts that it tries to use or create, again, like the Burn. Stuff like that does not depend on how believable an actor is, or how a scene is shot, or how good the CGI is.
But assuming that, then I still don't agree with your point. An engineer knows you could make a space elevator but they also know to do that you need a material that doesn't exist to handle the incredible stresses. So show them the designs for such a space elevator and they are going to look at it and say sure, its possible, if you've got the unobtanium you need. Now show them a design without various safety features, redundancies, and materials that can't handle the stress range, or other problems, and they are going to tell you its a junk design. It would be like showing them a design for a car with no brakes, or a plan to rely on solar energy with no reliable overnight power generation.
Except that the safety concerns that a 22nd Century engineer would be different from a 20th Century engineer. It took decades for seatbelts to be mandatory in cars and numerous people were accidentally poisoned by radium. Also, the 22nd Century engineer would be able to use technology that makes some of the safety concerns for the 20th Century engineer pointless. Why worry about railings in the 24th Century when a transporter can just beam any falling victim to safety?
in the case of the radium girls, it wasn't accidentally - it was deliberate
the people in charge of those factories and companies KNEW exactly how dangerous exposure to radium was even before they started hiring those girls to paint watch dials
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
But assuming that, then I still don't agree with your point. An engineer knows you could make a space elevator but they also know to do that you need a material that doesn't exist to handle the incredible stresses. So show them the designs for such a space elevator and they are going to look at it and say sure, its possible, if you've got the unobtanium you need. Now show them a design without various safety features, redundancies, and materials that can't handle the stress range, or other problems, and they are going to tell you its a junk design. It would be like showing them a design for a car with no brakes, or a plan to rely on solar energy with no reliable overnight power generation.
Except that the safety concerns that a 22nd Century engineer would be different from a 20th Century engineer. It took decades for seatbelts to be mandatory in cars and numerous people were accidentally poisoned by radium. Also, the 22nd Century engineer would be able to use technology that makes some of the safety concerns for the 20th Century engineer pointless. Why worry about railings in the 24th Century when a transporter can just beam any falling victim to safety?
Why would we have bridges if we have transporters? Seatbelts being mandatory has nothing to do with safety, that's just a government mandate. Without it they'd be an option like what color you want, and probably a standard option.
Regardless, a 20th century engineer not knowing about new safety advances is also irrelevant. They would ask why does your flying car not have a seatbelt? And then you tell them about transporters and they ask what happens if the transporters don't work? Then you tell them about exploding consoles filled with rocks and they ask to be sent back to their own time and never bothered again. The point is they can notice the lack of apparent safety features and raise the issue.
And talking about radium, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you are building something with a radioactive component, shielding is going to be a design concern.
And talking about radium, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you are building something with a radioactive component, shielding is going to be a design concern.
The issue is that people didn't know about the dangers of certain chemicals and radiation at the time. So it is impossible to develop safety procedures if everyone is ignorant about the dangers.
Comments
As we already knew.
No, what I am uninterested in is getting trolled about not being able to see DSC season three yet and the false inference that since I have not see the third season that my observations about the seasons I have seen are somehow invalidated by it.
I do not understand the idiotic binary thinking that holds that there are only two pigeonholes, those who think DSC is absolute perfection and those who irrationally hate it for being new. I have news for those binary thinkers: it does not really work that way.
I will eventually get around to seeing season three, I don't hate it like some people think I must since I commit the heresy of criticizing parts of it, I just don't think it is worth getting a subscription just for maybe two or three series which are fairly good but not significantly better than shows I can see already at no extra cost.
The world is shades of gray, people can like shows and still dislike or be disappointed by parts of those same shows, get over it.
Totally false. Give an engineer a diagram of a badly designed system/bridge/whatever, and they can point it out to you without ever seeing the actual thing, even tell you where it is likely to fail without knowing where it failed. We trust juries to render a fair judgement, a bunch of people who didn't witness the crime. Science and the concept of peer review is utterly based on someone not connected with the observations looking over them to see if they seem valid.
Of course they can be wrong, but they also aren't saddled by any emotional biases.
You do. You and others repeatedly claimed that I have some hatred of ST:D when I've repeatedly stated otherwise. My criticisms have not been at any of the acting or the general scripts outside of the scenes I've been able to watch.
If you'll remember I praised just about everything about the Empress Blinky scene, other than the concept. That was one of the stupidest ideas ever. That it was well shot and well acted doesn't change the fact it was insanely stupid, but I also didn't need to see it to tell you that concept was stupid.
I don't need to know how well acted Saru is, to have heard any of the dialogue between him and Sukal, or to have seen any second of the CGI to tell you the cause of the Burn is absurd. None of that affects how ridiculous the cause of the Burn is.
None of that helps me form an opinion on the show itself either, which I have been clear about. I can only know they have some really bad ideas that they shove into it.
It depends on the science whether it is based on someone connected with the observations or not. There is no way to prove numerous theories put out by Theoretical Physicists since we don't have the technology for it for decades or longer. Other sciences require numerous scientists to verify that the results observed in an experiment are duplicated. If only one group of scientists can observe the results while all other groups, then there is something wrong with the experiment which is usually due to lying or neglect.
Absolutely, its a major problem in science right now, non-reproduceable results and corruption in the peer review process. The point though, is that the system is based on someone looking over the work to find errors and inconsistences with no connection to the experiments or data.
Phoenix cannot reliably comment on Season 3 of DSC, because they remain ignorant (by choice, in this case) of changes in construction of the stories. A story, after all, is not a simple stone bridge - techniques used to assemble them change over time. Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake would be unrecognizable to Murasaki Shikibu, author of The Tale of Genji, not because she was a poor storyteller, but because some of the conventions Joyce used (and some of the conventions Joyce flouted) were not yet invented in her time. Similarly, the characters and situations in DSC Season 3 are not stone copies of what happened in seasons 1 and 2, but evolving (and in the case of the setting, sometimes radically changed) versions of what came before. One can no more analyze "That Hope Is You pt II" by watching "Battle at the Binary Stars" than one can analyze the behavior of the domestic chicken by observing the remains of the chicken's distant ancestor, Tyrannosaurus rex.
Again I'm talking specifically about things that don't require watching how the scenes play out or the acting or hearing the intonation of voice to know someone was being sarcastic or winked to imply lying or something. I made that clear.
If some idiot scientist refuses to release all their data then they get what they deserve when the reviewer and others says its junk science, because it is (even if media and politicians lie and say its good science.) Hiding data is reason enough to ignore or throw out whatever findings a scientist has presented. If you can't check it and test it, then it is not science.
So time travel is required to invalidate my point? I suppose there's a point there, its something like 23rd century dictators knowing a design flaw in 32nd century holograms, right? 18th century engineers aren't even close to 20/21st century engineers in terms of knowledge and training, though. It is a terrible example in a way that is wholly different from showing some 22nd century design to a 20th century engineer.
But assuming that, then I still don't agree with your point. An engineer knows you could make a space elevator but they also know to do that you need a material that doesn't exist to handle the incredible stresses. So show them the designs for such a space elevator and they are going to look at it and say sure, its possible, if you've got the unobtanium you need. Now show them a design without various safety features, redundancies, and materials that can't handle the stress range, or other problems, and they are going to tell you its a junk design. It would be like showing them a design for a car with no brakes, or a plan to rely on solar energy with no reliable overnight power generation.
For example, this concept is absurd without even seeing the (nonexistent) design documents:
Now you might try to counter by suggesting future materials (The stresses on this thing would be way beyond anything in the near future of materials science, if it is ever physically possible to handle them.) and whatnot which could deal with the massive problems with the structural issues, systems issues, logistics issues and so on. There are a massive range of issues that make something like this likely impossible, and arguably ridiculous to consider even 1000 years from now. Still, if those various problems could be dealt with, something like this would theoretically be possible and it would be an incredible technical achievement.
There's still a glaring and basic flaw in it that no amount of future tech and materials can deal with: Orbital mechanics. Aside from the issues of simply keeping that thing in a stable orbit, for something to be in geosynchronous orbit over NYC, it has to orbit earth also going as far south as north. What is as far south as NYC is north? The Andes mountains, and you may note there is quite an altitude difference between the two places. So unless you also cut a path for that thing through every mountain range it passes over (through), you've got serious problems.
https://news.yahoo.com/live-huge-skyscraper-suspended-asteroid-181506375.html
Incredibly, the article even alludes to this point without acknowledging the problem with it.
But yes, you could cut a path for it. and the engineer is going to ask why you did that when you could have just built it in geosynchronous orbit over equitorial ocean. They are going to ask why you didn't just build a space station instead, or an artificial moon, or terraform Venus, or just build something terrestrial and equally large, all of which would have been much easier projects that could offer a very similar end result. Why give yourself unnecessary problems to solve? And if those cables would snap, billions of people would die with no chance to correct the imminent disaster, unlike say an artificial moon/space station with a decaying orbit.
In any case, again I specifically was not talking about storyline or acting or anything that depends on watching the show, but the non-subjective concepts that it tries to use or create, again, like the Burn. Stuff like that does not depend on how believable an actor is, or how a scene is shot, or how good the CGI is.
Except that the safety concerns that a 22nd Century engineer would be different from a 20th Century engineer. It took decades for seatbelts to be mandatory in cars and numerous people were accidentally poisoned by radium. Also, the 22nd Century engineer would be able to use technology that makes some of the safety concerns for the 20th Century engineer pointless. Why worry about railings in the 24th Century when a transporter can just beam any falling victim to safety?
the people in charge of those factories and companies KNEW exactly how dangerous exposure to radium was even before they started hiring those girls to paint watch dials
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Why would we have bridges if we have transporters? Seatbelts being mandatory has nothing to do with safety, that's just a government mandate. Without it they'd be an option like what color you want, and probably a standard option.
Regardless, a 20th century engineer not knowing about new safety advances is also irrelevant. They would ask why does your flying car not have a seatbelt? And then you tell them about transporters and they ask what happens if the transporters don't work? Then you tell them about exploding consoles filled with rocks and they ask to be sent back to their own time and never bothered again. The point is they can notice the lack of apparent safety features and raise the issue.
And talking about radium, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you are building something with a radioactive component, shielding is going to be a design concern.
The issue is that people didn't know about the dangers of certain chemicals and radiation at the time. So it is impossible to develop safety procedures if everyone is ignorant about the dangers.