As a TAS fan, it’s great to hear that Alonso Myers and Goldsman are enthusiastically weaving in TAS elements where they can.
Between them and McMahan helming Lower Decks, we’ve had genuine determination to weave TAS into live action and put aside the claims that it isn’t canon.
I’m somewhat sad about the lack of Kzinti though. Larry Niven would be enthusiastic to have more Kzin in Trek from everything he’s written on that point.
So, this makes 5 different Star Trek series where John De Lancie has appeared as Q (if we’re taking Akiva Goldsman’s offscreen confirmation).
Doesn’t that put him in a tie with Jonathan Frakes as Riker?
Stefano’s from Montreal is great.
It’s made with high quality ingredients, and is also gluten free for those who require that.
https://www.stefanofaita.com/en/product/sauces-en/
We find them available in Ontario at Farmboy and Metro.
Their website says widely distributed across Canada including Loblaws, Whole Foods, Sobey’s, Save-On, Safeway and even Co-op.
I’m glad to get any kind of 5th season.
If there’s a new show, I would rather that they time skip forever to the end of TOS, after TAS.
A late year 4 and year 5 show would fit with the age of the cast, especially Paul Wesley as Kirk. Even Celia, who was a young Uhura in the first season of SNW is catching up given the slow pace of production and release with the pandemic and strike impacting timelines. Even if they just carried on, a TOS-based SNW spin-off wouldn’t be premiered before late 2027 or early 2028 at best.
Disappointed, but not surprised that SNW was sold as the lead into TOS - the entire show seems to have been based on that pitch to the senior executives obsessed with reboots.
It’s a great show but not what it could have been but likely the only version of it that could have been greenlit in this past decade.
I find I am delighted with Quinn’s Scotty.
I could have waited another season for him to be introduced - but I also could have been happier if SNW wasn’t so laser-focused on building the backstory of legacy characters vs giving us more of the new ones - and the cipher that was Number One.
Anyways…
Here’s a complication of TAS Scott images. I think that TAS Scotty looks somewhat in between Quinn and Doohan.
Fantastic!
And it looks like we need to hold the line again.
Someone seems to think the plain grey area on the left hand side of the saucer needs another decal.
I think a lesson learned for future years is that we can’t have any significant sections white pixels.
White areas are just an invitation to populate with other things.
I’m wondering if @ValueSutracted or @Corgana could save a screenshot of the Canvas pixel colour set. That way, next time a template is designed, it could have more of a one-to-one correspondence with the options in Canvas.
Other lesson (although it wasn’t a problem in previous years) is that if we want the website banner, we may need to get that sketched out very early.
In the end, it looks like the Big D is just blowing through some holograms or perhaps an asteroid belt.
Engage the main deflector array!
And it looks like it’s just a matter of holding the line now.
I worked out what to do with the red for the Bussard collector I’m the right nacelle to match the left.
But what colour is the light cyan blue in the middle for the dish supposed to be? Should we go with a blue of some kind since we’ve used all grays?
Thanks - I tried closing my browser view but when I relaunched from the link here, I just see the outline rather than the template.
Third try from the embedded link for the template and I am there.
deleted by creator
Ok
I clearly have forgotten how to be able to see our template.
I am logged in as a StarTrek.website user but not seeing it.
I am fully expecting it to be at least 1/3 ponies.
Yes, I have done this in previous years.
Surprised by some of the comments here.
Whether or not the solution being proposed is the best or only one is the question.
Instead several users are taking any discussion as being anti-democratic.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada raised concerns about how these long ballots were impeding the democratic process, including by presenting barriers to accessibility by voters.
This has become an increasing problem, with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s riding being targeted in 2019.
There seem to be two kinds of barriers:
The underlying issue seems to be that a small group of qualified voters in a targeted riding are nominating a very large number of candidates.
That is 60+ candidates put forward by the longest ballot group were all nominated by the same small number of voters.
Is this reasonable?
Democratic rights are balanced with responsibility under the Charter. Is it reasonable for a single voter to sign the nomination papers for 50 candidates or even 20.
Only being able to sign the papers for one candidate in one election period may be too limiting as not all candidates obtain enough signatures to be minor drop out later for other reasons.
Would limiting the right to sign nomination papers to 2 or 5 candidates be a reasonable balance under the Charter?
While this specific solution being proposed by this CPC member may be too restrictive, it seems worth a debate.
And perhaps the second issue of voters being able to reasonably obtain information about the intent and positions of candidates would be resolved if there were not so many nominated candidates.
The Rhinoceros party position that their candidates would resign if elected was well known so voters could make an informed choice. The current long ballot situation doesn’t offer that choice.
A proactive referral to the Supreme Court of Canada might be the best way to get an understanding of the balance of democratic rights. It would be best to have a read on what would be a reasonable limitation on both those who sign nominations and those who put themselves forward vs the responsibility to have accessible ballots with candidates who intend to serve before any changes to the the elections act is brought forward.
Check out altgrocery.ca for a list and map of farmers markets across Canada.
The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.
e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.
There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.
More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.
They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.
They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.
Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…
If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.
And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.
And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.
I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.
What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.
It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.
If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.
Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?
My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.
Full stop.
No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.
University of Regina astronomer Prof. Sam Lawler @[email protected] was part of the team that discovered it.
Here’s the start of her thread on the release posted to Mastodon. Lots of cool stuff!
https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/114813850188903877