• 1 Post
  • 72 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • Farscape is a very soft sci-fi, but it has a mostly consistent world that mostly follows its internal logic. It has muppet aliens and the supernatural along side more traditional TV space tropes, but the narrative makes sense as presented, and it doesn’t do much to hurt your suspension of disbelief.

    Doctor Who is the opposite of consistent. It makes shit up as it goes along and isn’t even consistent in the kind of bullshit it’s throwing at you. It can be tropey nonsense, comedy overriding reality, fairy tale reasoning that breaks down when you try to think about it to much, or whatever other idiocy it feels like being today. Instead of building a world that you can understand, it basically just says “don’t worry about it, assume we already did the boring set up stuff, and just run with the fact that plastic can be alive and chasing after people because that’s what we’re doing this week.”



  • Everyone who is alive today is descended from slave owners, thieves, rapists, murderers, conquerors and oppressors. They are also all descended from people who were the victims of slavery, theft, rape, murder, conquest and oppression. If people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors, then we are all guilty of damn near everything, and it’s basically just original sin without all the Catholicism.



  • I believe there was originally a line of dialogue about there being resistance when they pushed through objects, which was supposed to explain why they don’t just fall. That line was cut, but IIRC it is still referenced indirectly when Geordi’s hand gets zapped and he says that there was more resistance to pushing through stuff afterwards.

    That wouldn’t explain why there is enough resistance in the floor to stand and walk, but not enough resistance in walls to prevent them from easily passing through. Presumably their mass and the pull of gravity are unchanged, so the resistance would have to be enough to counteract their weight. And even if they did weigh less, they still propel themselves forward through walls by pushing off the floor, so either the floor needs to be more solid, or they should be nearly weightless and move by paddling their feet through the floor until they build up momentum enough to smash through a wall. Also, if they are applying pressure to objects they pass through, shouldn’t people they touch feel it?

    Personally, I’d probably explain the floors specifically being impassable by blaming it on the way the artificial gravity is generated.

    I don’t have a good explanation for how they can breathe, how they see without interacting with light, how they can hear clearly when matter isn’t really touching them and therefore can’t conduct sound, etc.





  • Ukraine is a major global food supplier. The war has directly impacted food prices. And if Russia succeeds, it will only encourage more conflict of this kind. And that’s ignoring the possibility that this will escalate into an even larger conflict because Putin decides that NATO’s resolve is weak enough that article 5 is no longer a plausible threat.

    Also, that stupid argument applies just as much to funding schools, cancer research, fighting climate change and basically all other functions of government that serve the public good. We should do more to address economic issues, but that doesn’t mean we should stop doing everything else.


  • My dad used to tell me “It’s a lot harder to carpet the world than it is to wear shoes.”

    Ambitious redesigns of existing infrastructure are neat, but they are rarely more efficient or practical. Especially when you are overengineering to solve an issue that’s already been dealt with. A self cleaning room requires a lot of additional hardware, all of which has to be designed, built and installed, and has to be powered and run by software that needs to be programmed. It also needs to be maintained, and depending on how it’s cleaning things, it may also be dangerous, or at least capable of damaging property (ever have a motion activated light turnoff while in a bathroom stall? now imagine it triggers steam jets). Not to mention the potential hazards of water damage on a room if anything goes wrong.

    Or, you can buy a mop for 0.1% of the price.

    Humanoid robots can escape this problem because versatility adds value. The upfront cost may be tens of thousands of dollars, but for that price you’re getting something that solves many, many problems. They can potentially go from task to task, filling a multitude of roles, and ideally with minimal down time.

    It also helps that we can use existing processes to train them. They can observe human workers performing a task, attempt to replicate that task, and use feedback to improve. And that’s critical because the hardware is the easier part, it’s software that’s the real challenge.


  • It’s easier to build a specialized robot for one task than to create a general purpose robot to handle that task. However, as the technology matures, I think it becomes much more practical to create a general purpose robot that’s capable of performing millions of tasks than to create millions of different specialized robots. Not only is that far less to design, source parts for, build and maintain, but it also makes it much easier to repurpose them as needs change. The same basic design can potentially be used for factory work, household chores, new construction, search and rescue operations, food service, vehicle maintenance, mining, caring for kids/elderly/pets, building and maintaining other robots, etc. We’re not there yet, but that’s where this kind of technology could potentially take us.

    The advantage of a mostly humanoid robot is that it’s versatile and can use existing solutions built for people. Yes, you could replace the legs with wheels or treads, and you’d probably be just fine for most functions with a Johnny 5 type design, but there will still be exceptions. Being able to climb up or down a ladder for example means that you don’t have to engineer a solution to deal with getting onto a roof or down into a tunnel system. We’ve already spent thousands of years solving those problems for humans.


  • Babylon 5.

    I rewatch it every few years, this time with the SO who finally caved and decided to watch it with me. Despite having seen the entire series half a dozen times I’m still finding things I never noticed before. And while it’s always been rather timeless, a lot of its themes are so much more applicable now than ever before. Cannot recommend it highly enough.

    Other recent rewatches shared with the SO and found to have stood the test of time: Gargoyles, Batman TAS, Brisco County Jr, Daredevil, Star Trek TNG.







  • You’re friend might be afraid of “gay” touching, I wouldn’t know. But I do think that can also be an easy way to explain away someone’s boundaries without understanding the complexity of the behaviors involved.

    I have fairly strong boundaries, and as a general rule I don’t want people hugging me. This isn’t because there is something sexual about the hug, but because I don’t want the unwelcome close physical contact. A lot of people get to the point of welcoming that kind of contact faster than I do, and that’s fine, good for them. But that doesn’t make my comfort level less valid. And critically, one thing that makes it so hard is the social expectation, the idea that there is something wrong with saying no, and the implication that you should let people do these things that make you uncomfortable. In fact some people will ignore those boundaries and act like it’s doing you a favor, as though willfully inflicting themselves on others is supposed to make people less defensive.

    And yet, if someone is having a hard time and needs an arm around their shoulder, I’m there. I will absolutely hug someone who is hurting and needs to be comforted. I’m a very caring person, and I don’t have a problem with that kind of physical contact when it’s for someone else’s benefit, as long as it’s my choice to offer it.

    Sexuality only really enters into it in that a bit of sexual attraction can also quickly overcome those boundaries. It’s easy to welcome intimate contact with someone when a primitive part of your brain is trying to nudge you into doing whatever it takes to get this person naked and pressed against you. It’s a specific desire overriding the general preference for boundaries, not the context for all physical contact.


  • I don’t pay that much attention to the latest gossip or trending scandals. And when I hear that there is a scandal, I refuse to jump on the bandwagon unless I take the time to get a clear understanding of the situation and the context, which takes time I may not have. Sometimes torches and pitchforks are clearly justified, sometimes they aren’t or it’s impossible to know.

    If something is a big enough issue that I hear about it, and it turns out that the artist is a confirmed shit head, I’ll avoid giving them money. But generally speaking, it only taints their work if it reveals things you didn’t see there before. Sometimes that thing which can’t be unseen is significant enough to ruin the experience.

    Then again, I also have no problem with consuming media that has objectionable elements to it, as long as I know about it going in. I’ve read Lovecraft knowing he was a racist and more, and yeah, it definitely shows (sources of terror: madness, the cold indifference of a harsh universe, immigrants, the working class, and race mixing). But while I’m not a huge fan and don’t actively promote his work, I’m glad I read what I did, and would advise anyone interested in Lovecraft to go ahead and read it, as long as they know what they are getting into.

    So, while I can separate art and artist, I don’t know how often I really need to. I can think for myself, I don’t need to have my content sanitized, and I certainly don’t need to purge my library based on nothing more than an association with someone who did something bad at some point.

    Gene Roddenberry was often a shitty person, but that doesn’t change the positive impact that Star Trek has had on myself and others. We could throw the whole franchise out, but it would be a terrible loss if we did.