I guess it’s better to say that I love the jokes like that but dislike some of the malice that comes behind some of the jokes, if that makes sense. [...] some of the jokes were either based around a misunderstanding or outright hatred.

Why do you ridicule me then all over these comments for making that same observation with the meme you posted?

It may be a joke. It's just a dumb joke.

All of these are just willfully misunderstanding the point of these things to the point of idiocy.

1. Usually, the rigid time constraints are shown to not work, and something else happens that solves the conundrum. Either that or the engineer overestimated the time with regards to security protocols, testing and so on, implying that cutting time will be significantly more risky.
2. The shields are offline because power generation is failing. Diverting power from life support is the last resort, implying that either we get the shields online at the expense of long-term life support for a small chance at survival, or keep them offline for a guaranteed death. It makes sense to divert power from life support.
3. They are frequently in unfamiliar or entirely deserted locations. Who has every close space station in mind at all times? Are you implying that someone on a long highway cannot be surprised by the distance to the next gas station if gas runs out?
4. This never happened.
5. This never happened.

I always held the opinion that "treknobabble" was largely internally consistent and made sense within the established technologies of the universe, with notable exceptions in the biology department (TNG: "Genesis" anyone?). I dislike when people make fun of Trek engineer speech as if it was completely incoherent made up words á la "it's a unix system". "Treknobabble" is consistent and believable, and I don't think it's cute to insinuate that it's all some kind of silly in-joke.

Ira Steven Behr was the person whose influence I loved most.

1. Thinkpads are popular, well supported, generally well built and sturdy. The indie startups may or may not provide proper support, have the proper experience to build a good product and are harder to find resources for.
2. Thinkpads are cheap and easy to get for the power they contain. Devices like the Purism phone are extremely expensive for just a tiny bit of the power and plenty of problems in tow.

Actually, writers seem to be very on-board with being able to experiment more.

Star Trek is nerd culture. Nerd culture is predominantly white cishet guys. White cishet guys who feel excluded from the rest of society or face issues growing up (which usually leads to them being nerds) tend to be radicalized by far-right talking points as a replacement for an identity.

Not all of them of course, but a lot of them. That's the reason. Star Trek is different than other fandoms in that it historically has always been a lot more diverse than other fandoms. If you think the Star Trek fandom at large is bad, check out others. Way worse.

Russia would certainly impose its oppressive social stances on the territory including its homophobia, sexism, racism, patriarchal order, lack of freedom of press and so on. This would probably not be as bad under a NATO-aligned European government (although the West has been known to bring fascists to power if necessary), which uses its slight edge in progressivism as a useful propaganda shield.

Both would however use it as a geopolitical pressure point for further aggression, stationing nuclear weapons, economically colonize the war-torn ruins by "helping rebuild", and subduing the local population and labor rights. Zelensky disbanded unions and the right to strike, abolished gay marriage for the duration of the war to prevent gay refugees from taking their husbands with them, banned socialist movements and is draconic against draft dodgers and peace activists (even those without Russian ties). The Ukrainian army stations troops in civilian places to hide them, endangering their own people, incorporate and welcome neo-nazis into their military as part of some kind of popular front, and use banned weapons. On the other side, Russia does all of these too and commits war crimes left and right, so it is not like they are any more welcome in my eyes.

Either outcome would (in the long term) be worse for the people of Ukraine, Russia, the rest of Europe and probably the world. The war would not stop after Ukraine.

As long as our economy is steered by the whims of wealthy people seeking to maximize their profits and not by any democratic process, we will have these issues over and over again as at some point the only direction the economy could grow is into other countries. It's no coincidence that China and Russia are the "enemies" of the West when they are the two biggest economies that mainly act in competition to the Western economies. For instance, Amazon would literally kill to get the entire Chinese market, let alone all other American multinationals. And with the power that money and capital has, a war is possible to incite based on that desire to expand to "enemy countries". Same with the Chinese and Russian economies. Tencent and Gazprom would love to control their respective Western markets.

Why are they sending hundreds of thousands of working class people of both Ukraine, Russia and third countries to kill each other then, if it's really about the governments' wrongdoings?

Why not support revolutionaries within Russia, helping the Russians to dispose of their own government? Why does NATO have to be involved as an actor in the first place? Why do workers have to murder each other on front lines? The governments' and militaries' support should be constrained strictly to humanitarian support and help, not weapons.

Both governments and their national capital are the enemy. It is a war between two economies over geopolitical control over Ukraine, fought by and written in blood of people who don't profit from either side of the war. No Ukrainian soldier or Russian soldier wins at the end of the day. Whichever side wins, it is going to end in a bloodbath and further oppression. Sure, a Russian win would be worse in the long run, but the Ukrainian government and NATO countries ain't no saints either, and is certainly not the side I would like to die for.

Absolutely the Pakled.

There is no "actual meaning". There is no "using words wrong". You do not understand how human language works. Language is defined by its users, not by you, or a dictionary, or a historian.

Girl: "Hey you look kind of like my grandma :)"

... How is this in any shape or form offensive? Let alone homophobic? Fucking cops, man.

But you don't have the authority over words. Words don't have innate meaning given to them by some God; their meaning is defined by usage. And it's very obvious that people use these terms very differently.

They do not have a meaning, since almost each native speaker uses them differently. You are not the authority over their meaning, no matter how righteous you think yourself, and neither do I. Meaning is defined by popular usage.

You know what, that sounds super enjoyable. I'm going to do that.

Thought I was watching a Marvel preview for a second. yawn

Okay, cool, those are your opinion. There is no common ground on these definitions. I may agree with many of those, I may not agree with others, but after all these are just our opinions.

We both know that different people use these terms differently. The German political education ministry for example defines extremism as any anticonstitutional movement, and goes on to mention "caring too much about anti-fascism" as a form of left-wing extremism: Source Meanwhile, they define radicalism as an ideology unwilling to compromise their positions... or someone who seeks to combat the root of a societal ill. Source

On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream, and even "conflate" it with radicalism: Source Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to "British values", whatever those are, along with specifically mentioning people who condone the loss of British soldiers: Source

I am sure that many, many people would disagree with these definitions both inside and outside of these countries, let alone across political ideologies. No matter how strongly you feel about defining these words to your liking, fact is that they do not have clear definitions and are useless in any kind of serious debate. As long as a pro-capitalist queer activist is considered left-wing by about half the population and right-wing by the other, there cannot be common ground.

On my computers, it always starts off as black for some reason.

Woo, my instance got called out! :D

You might want to contact the licensing team of the GNU project for that, I hear they have good lawyers who offer advice in these situations.

I did use xsetroot. That's why the background is gray and not black.

xsetroot -gray is in my xinitrc.