Might be a bit simple but why not the “North Star” (Polaris)? Navigation could work via analysis of stars positions relative to eachother/positions of constellations relative to the ship. You could justify it in-universe as being a nod to how early mariners used these same stars to navigate Earth’s oceans.
I think if you seriously hold those views you should consider the fact that there are many reprehensible individuals which thought exactly like you do in the past. Though the groups they chose and the reasoning provided varied, all being equally irrational, they found reasons to neglect if not outright try to erase individuals which they perceived as somehow inferior to themselves because of their lifestyle choices. They falsely thought, like you do, that society would be better off if these individuals were not part of it and “punished” for their lifestyle choices.
This is a point where you need to actually realize for yourself what you’re arguing for is reflective of a worldview which is objectively evil. You need only to look up the horrors of eugenics, of every ethnic genocide, of every society which chose to discriminate rather than uplift its members.
From the way you speak you seem to think that those who are strong or smart or talented have no duty to anyone but themselves. But you fail to realize that one day you may get sick, one day you may be old, one day you may be involved in an accident through no fault of your own, or by means of your lifestyle choices. At that time, you will need people to care for you, and you will realize exactly what I’m trying to tell you here.
For reference, the way you think is not new. I suggest you look through the chapter in Plato’s republic where Socrates speaks with Thrasymachus about how “might does not equal right” to gain perspective on this. Thrasymachus held your worldview. It was one of the first positions that Socrates showed to be indefensible.
I suggest you look up just how often motorcycle injuries/deaths happen. What you’re saying only applies if you never get into an accident or fall off the bike ever, in the entire period it is owned (which could be 20-30 years). Something which is incredibly unlikely. From the language you’re using (i.e whale) I’m getting the impression that your position isn’t rational and instead based on a dislike of overweight people. I’ve done what I can here but I don’t think you’re messaging back in good faith and don’t want to entertain the perspective of someone who tries to put others beneath them based on their body and eating habits.
Consider what you just said can apply to motorcycling or buying a classic car with outdated safety features. There is no tangible health benefit to motorcycling or driving a classic car, it basically “has no positive health benefits at all” (as per your own words) and only increases risk. Show it be banned? What about every other risky hobby? If not, then neither should eating junk food which is measurably less dangerous/risky. Keep in mind that for smoking the overall trends of diminishing smoking habits in younger generations basically highlights the proof that encouraging healthy habits rather than punishing the individual is the correct way to approach this.
You’ve gotten a lot of downvotes but rather than doing that I want to explain to you why your position here is flawed.
First think of every lifestyle activity whether it be food, motorcycle riding, music, etc. Now consider that there are some activities that are statistically safer than others.
If we took your position to the point of being law why would we stop at food lifestyle choices? Why not just any risky lifestyle choices? Eventually you end up with a society where individuals have less choice and freedom and are constantly obligated to live the safest possible lives.
You and I both know that isn’t a desirable outcome. We should be empowering people to live the lives they choose and encouraging them to be healthy, not punishing them for make the “wrong” choice.
I’m your host Will “T-Bone” Riker and welcome to Deltas, Directives, and Docks. Today we’re checking out the Sisko restaurant, they’ve got gumbo so good it makes founders grow frosted tips. The only war in this Dominion is the one I’m going to wage on these succulent crawfish.
Go to your local food bank, that should help your food situation for now. Once you get some money get a giant bag of white rice and a cheap rice cooker. Eat the rice plus any protein and veggies you can get to make low cost meals as you financially recover. In terms of tech skills that can be developed Google offers several free certifications in Google analytics, Google ads, etc. Get a few of those and practice (should only take a few days) and try to get an entry level digital marketing, SEM, or PPC role. Once you get the role keep practicing and expanding your certifications to increase stability.
Strange New Worlds definitely still has the “optimistic” viewpoint of old trek. I think that’s why it has been doing so well. I think the problem in other modern Trek shows like the first 2 seasons of Picard or all of Discovery was that there wasn’t enough of the hopeful optimism that made Trekkies fall in love with the franchise. There doesn’t need to be a universe ending plot calamity, exploration and interesting sci-fi plots that actually drive character development are enough.
Even “grittier” old trek like DS9 (my favourite trek show) had optimistic undertones of recognizing similarities between cultures, forging alliances, trying to be ethical in the face of war, and addressing social issues.
Even the underlying theme of Voyager was to maintain the ideals of the federation against all odds in the face if hopelessness.
I just hope studios see the success of Strange New Worlds and make more trek like it.
There’s coffee in that light beam!
Ok so you’re going to need a black hole to focus the signal. I hear there’s a guy called Reginald Barclay working on this.
I bet he regrets that umlaut.
Looks like you saw right through the marketing. Seems like that product failed to materialize. It fairs to reason those claims were intangible.
Depends on your tastes. I personally really liked it because it represented philosophical absurdism and various existential concepts in an interesting/comedic way. I laughed really hard at things like the “everything” donut and Michelle Yeoh’s big fight scene where she used “compassion” to solve all the henchpeople’s life problems and “defeat” them.
Despite it’s fun/weird/comedic exterior it was very clearly written with these philosophical concepts in mind. If you like thinky/philosophical stuff you probably like this movie too, that said if you don’t like that kind of vibe you probably just viewed the randomness/oddness of some of the scenes as strange.
The collective has decided not to assimilate you on account of perceived “bad smell” which is perhaps too distinct to add to our own and "weird-voyager-salamander-cringe-energy ".
This drone did not “downvote” you. Another of the collective did so. Through readings from its ocular implant this drone was able to determine this area of Lemmy space is non-serious. Recommended adaptations are to “lighten up” and “enjoy the jokes”.
Riker, his face bearded.
I am loquatious of borg, your pendantry will be assimilated to service my own, your “umm ackshullys” are futile.
I mean, they have a transporter right? Couldn’t they just beam waste into a holding container or out into space? In discovery they say they recycle everything so maybe it just gets beamed to Kieko’s Arboretum lol.
You have no xmas warrior spirit Alexander. You’re on my naughty list you little P’takh, dishonor on your w-HOHOHO-le family.
It’s kind of always been pretty Canadian. Both Kirk and Scotty from the original series are played by Canadian actors: Shatner (from Montreal) and Doohan (from Vancouver).