Yes. As i wrote in another rant\b\b\b\b post in this thread, they used to be story first. (mostly) good stories that just happen to be about "woke" subjects. Now it feels like the other way

Was it?

To me it sounds like another idea how to come up with an interesting alien race without a high makeup/FX budget. Trek often did that. Introduce a flat character defined by one single trait and alien race background, and develop it from there.

I wouldn't be surprised if that metaphor was developed after the concept resonated with transgender fans. And then develop it naturally. And entertaining.

Yes, at one point Trek forgot to make it entertaining. And we need a word for that. And if we go with the "Trek was always woke", we need a new word for that. I wouldn't mind reserving "woke" for that and say that old Trek was good at how it did it and not uninspiredly woke.

Preference doesn't necessarily imply a decision. I never decided to be a straight guy, but sexually, I still prefer women.

That probably depends on your definition of "woke"

Yes, it was always addressing controversial subjects, was progressive and diverse and inclusive. From a black woman on bridge to low-gravity wheelchair-Arielle in DS9. If that was "woke", it was an inspired wokeness that the viewer had to grapple with, challenge his own prejudices.(*)

What happend to that? Today's "wokeness" feels like a producer mandated LHGBT-Quota, a checkbox to fill during casting, or a right-in-your-face lecture. Again, not because anyone is invested in showing mankind a way to progress, but to please and appease some lobby or viewer target group.

Old Trek never FORCED those "woke" subjects on you. It used to tell great stories, that sometimes were about those subjects. And sometimes it was "monster of the week". But that variety worked. Today, it feels the other way round. "We need to fill those checkboxes. Let's engineer a story around them. By commitee." (**)

Whatever Star Trek always was - woke or not - it's something different today.

Orville has that spirit now, progressing from dick jokes to "Twice in a lifetime"

(*) granted. there were better and worse takes at that. TNG:Justice anyone?

(**) or vice versa. "People notice our checkbox-driven writing. We need to insert some tactical goofiness. Let's do Muppets!"

Explain to me why for a while facebook almost only presented me midgets in bikinis on my timeline? That was weirdly and overly specific.

Max Headroom did this already in its pilot. ("Blipverts").

And the episode "Dream Thieves".

And almost every other episode...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)#Episodes

Anyone has been wondering why that show is never on re-runs?

As I read the story, the limitations were only set in the web GUI, like limiting date selection or not offering a button to cancel a reservation. And honestly, that sounds like something someone would be like "nah, just limit the date picker in the GUI and keep the API as flexible as possible"

Here you can sign up for it up to 4 times per year and get the pick up date.

Who would use a website when there is an API?

I remember times past when half of the /. users would prefer writing a curl script over going to a website to get things done if there was an API.

The AI used the available API. API are meant for computers to talk directly to each other.

We should think in APIs and not in Apps since the advent of smartphones.

An API gives a defined interface that defines capabilities, access rights and hides away the actual process implementation details from the process caller. Why would the AI be expected to use the website, that is nothing but a human useable wrapper around the API? With the same logic we could expect an AI to call another AI run phone hotline to ask for the cinema schedule - which should have been a simple http call.

...that's why you have special collections.

I've seen way too much stuff in that movie first.

I absolutely agree. Except for the last wave of boomers, everyone is used now to do everything you need to to with any company online through the self-service settings. Sign up? Cancel? Change address? Change Plan? Reservations? Everything on the website.

Making a call s a last resort when your problem isn't covered by the standard processes on the website. If the hotline can only do the very same things, then it's useless to beginn with.

Legally and for any insurance claims: yes. But the airline reputation still would suffer by a lot.

In the end, it will depend on the actual cabin layout which will depend on their marketing. This is probably going to be marketed to people who would fly business class anyway. A 24h+ flight would be a special luxury treat (just checked Sydney - New York, even as non-non-stop flight you can do that in less than 24hrs). Due to the additional tank you have less space for passengers, an additional meal per passenger takes up even more space and we haven't even touched the "exercise areas" or the crammed coach seats....

They will probably go the Concorde route and make up for the lack of speed with more space and even more caviar.

I'm the first to admit that defining defining the limits of someones freedom can never be without problems. Yet they need to be defined, because you can't have that freedom at the cost of someone elses freedom.

I even went through the examples and commented on which of those I see as a problem, too (Pimmelgate) and which I don't see as a problem (cases of simple and clear insults). That's simply blown out of proportion.

Maybe because someone is doing exactly what you said I was doing: Pointing at someone elses problem to make your problem look smaller....

I have good news for you: You can.

But no fair and meaningful political debate or discussion (what is the actual goal freedom of speech needs to protect) can come from insults or hate. Sou you need to do it without those.

Good news again: In Germany facts aren't slander or libel either.