Classic old house repair.
Pick one:
- Install blinds level Or
- Install blinds so that they look level.
I choose off-level but right looking, myself.
- Posts
- 6
- Comments
- 1083
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 6
- Comments
- 1083
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
they've never given enough thought to Star Trek to consider that some random Tumblr screen grab isn't accurate.
I don't know if it's perfectly captioned, but I clearly remember that moment in DS9 when Dax's old war buddy reacts to her gender and name change with a repeated big hug and corrected name...so... I'm not sure what we're getting at here?
how Kor treated Jadzia Dax.
For anyone who wasn't there, this moment was revolutionary, at the time.
"What should I even say if my friend comes out to me as Transgender?!" wasn't something everyone knew an answer to.
Having any character (Klingon or otherwise) handle learning that their friend's gender has changed, and react in a healthy way, on screen, on prime time television, was an important positive moment for a lot of clueless future-ally scifi fans.
The single ship thing is annoying and stupid - except, of course, when...
when it's the Enterprise D. When it's Enterprise D getting a victory lap, common sense can sit this one out while I enjoy it.
Haven't seen season 3
Uhhhh.... Just so you know, most of us consider Season 3 the good one.
I enjoyed all three, but S3 was particularly a beautiful love letter to TNG.
Your assertion that any sci-fi at all isn't political is a particularly bold one.
But it's a fascinating thought, so I'm going on an unrequested quest:
Here's my attempt at "let's name a hard science fiction that isn't making a political statement".
Perhaps...
- "Frankenstein" is about grave robbing and biology horror and in no way an analogy for mistreatment of neurodivergent individuals.
- "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is about a cool submarine and not about an ultra rich man's extreme rejection of modern societal norms bending the world of those around him.
- "The Martian" was about the cold hard science of a man surviving on Mars, and not all about humanity briefly overcoming our national rivalries to do the human thing and being one person home safely.
- "The Robot" is just about a time traveling robot, and not a sad prediction of mankind's likelihood to erradicate ourselves leaving only our automation to remember us by.
- "Bicentenial Man" is about robotics advances and has nothing to do with marginalized people fighting to have their human rights acknowledged.
- "The Expanse" is just about how dangerous space is, and not at all about how humanity tends to break off into adversarial groups.
- "Snow piercer" is about a cool train in the cold.
Okay, now I'm not even trying anymore, lol. (Snow piercer is blatantly deeply political, no matter how much I love the cool science train.)
I'm coming up short, arguing myself out of my best ideas, so far.
Hang on, I've got two:
- "Around the world in 80 days" is arguably at least slightly more about globe trotting and less about putting up with a rich employer's bullshit.
- "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is mostly about cool caves and dinosaurs?!
I should reread these two, but I don't remember many political messages.
(Edit. I bet someone is going to point out the political messages I missed in 80 Days and Journey. Considering how political I remember 20,000 Leagues being, I wonder if I just misremember the other two...)
So yeah, taken independently it's a better relationship image than most relationships in most shows, but in the context it's pretty horrible.
Absolutely. I think a lot of the audience realize that if they weren't a gay couple, we would see them with their shirts off together at every opportunity.
The silver lining is that the actors are so attractive and doing such a beautiful and convincing job, that the omission makes the show runners look prudish and silly.
Section 31 is pretty badass, right?
I have to say, I hated that. It feels like C suite "promote our upcoming show" meddling, to me.
"When I have a problem that phasers can't solve, I just kiss a beautiful alien. Then suddenly, I have a completely different problem!" - Jason Tiberius Kirk
Edit: I may have drifted into the Kelvin timeline...
but the most the gay couple gets is sitting next to each other, brushing teeth and a small kiss
While you're absolutely right, I think the record should show that tooth brushing scene is one of the sexiest scenes in television history. Those two have some serious on-screen chemistry.
The only issue disco has ever actually had is their serialized episodes.
And not spending enough on light bulbs in some episodes. I wondered if my TV was broken, at one point. Lol.
Thanks. I hate it.
Gonna go check my cinnamon.
But seriously, thanks.
Well that makes more sense, but it is still a lot of churn.
Sure, I mean it risks a lot of churn, but it hasn't happened, in practice.
My team will debate the merits of a change until the cows come home, but they know that if they actually decide to make the change, I'll expect them to put in all the necessary work to do it right. Ironically, that tends to curb their appetite for perfectionism.
Thankfully we're all pretty much of like-mind. Nothing changes from project to project in the naming realm.
Yeah. Same here. That's really why I get away with technically allowing a change during any retro. My teams appetite for refinements settled down after our first four sprints as a team.
Things might get interesting again, when we make our next hire; but I consider that part of the onboarding process. It should be worth the trouble just in case the new hire brings brings smart new practices we might have been ignoring. And whether anything changes or not, it creates a time and place for the new hire to argue their differences with the team.
We discuss naming conventions whenever we start a new project, and then it's locked in.
That's very practical, and really accomplishes the same net effect as my team's policy, with less theoretical risk of thrashing.
A possible difference is that sometimes my team will insist on a refactor of some old code to update to the latest standards, at the start of a new project updating an old product.
As long as the code test coverage is acceptable to me, I'll green light that effort as part of sprint zero.
We have tens of thousands of files in the project I'm in charge of, so we'd never consider such an extensive refactor.
Oh yeah. I would probably use my manager veto in that case. At some point it's just too much work to verify the change.
We do have one big repo that we're breaking up over time, and I insist that such changes be limited to the current actively developed component. It's a unique case, because the vision for the repo is to get smaller as parts of it are decoupled (and released as open source). So we don't deeply care if different modules have mildly different code standards, since they're destined for separate public repos, in the long run.
I did do away with BEM when I started, because I despise that clusterfuck of a convention for more reasons than I care to explain here, but I waited until a new project to do it, and everyone agreed with me.
That's some holy and righteous work you accomplished. All future developers on that effort owe you a debt!
Lol. Oh, right. I was kind of asking for clarification if tie fighters count, but I guess that's a moot point. I had not thought about the impact of the battle at the start of Ep IV - probably leaves everyone too black out drunk for the rest to matter.
This is perfect. Thank you for this.
You might as well not have a naming convention then, since the project is going to be full of different conventions.
Oh, I skipped this. Lol. Obviously not. As a team, they can implement whatever convention change they want, every two weeks.
As manager, I expect them to update all active projects, in their entirety, to the new convention, each time.
And as I mentioned in my other comment, if their test coverage isn't at a level that makes me confident in that kind of global change (70% tends to be plenty), then I reserve the right to table it - until they bring the test coverage up (on all impacted projects).
You allow naming schemes to change every two weeks? That's just insane!
Yes. Everything is open for discussion every two weeks, during our retrospective meeting.
Of course, that doesn't mean things will actually change that fast.
But let me push back a bit, too - a global find and replace on our entire source code would take maybe a couple hours. A substantial naming convention refactor would take maybe a couple of days.
The reason we don't do anything that aggressive is we don't trust ourselves to make the change correctly - not because it's actually a difficult change to make. Where our test coverage is where it should be, it's a perfectly safe change.
If my team tells me (in agreement with each other) that a change like that is necessary, my job is to go make time for them to get it done.
On the scale of requests my team has given me, a couple days to rename some variables is no big deal.
There's absolutely stuff I won't allow, as team manager, but flip flopping on variable naming is owned by the team, and I would allow it, within reason.
A couple fair-game manager reasons I might shut down a variable naming convention change are:
- The test coverage on that part of the code doesn't inspire enough confidence to make any unnecessary changes. Improve the test coverage, and we will revisit.
- (Hypothetically) We made two similar changes in recent memory, and as manager, this is affecting our team reputation. Let's make a plan to make this change in a way that does not impact our team reputation.
Anything short of those two scenarios, and - should my team present it to me in agreement - I go make the time for them to make the change.
A shorter version is: I'll discuss and do my best to support whatever my team wants to change - every two weeks. It's a small price to pay for some peace for 9 out of every 10 business days! (And honestly, it's a big part of my success formula.)
I don't think that's survivable? I'm just imagining some of the space battles...lol.
Yeah.
It's also just fun to talk about because it probably makes US healthcare CEOs nervous.
After all they've done to the rest of us, it's nice to think of them feeling nervous. If they're not going to feel our grief, or appropriate remorse, or empathy, at least they can feel nervous.
Yeah. That's a great point. If the window is hidden most of the time, then what really matters is alignment with the floor and ceiling.