I don’t think a medical-focused Trek show would have to take place during war time. Medical Ethics in general is ripe for the sort of show Trek lends itself to.

deleted by creator

My point was that Star Wars has been tied to the same characters for personal and business reasons, not inherently creative ones defined by the setting. The difference IMO is mostly down to who the creators and executives involved in the process of each IP have been, not the actual merits of the respective IP’s worlds.

If Gene Roddenberry has decided that Next Generation had to be about Kirk and his crew, and then Paramount also mandated all it’s other Star Trek projects to be about TOS crew, we’d be having the same discussions about “why can’t Start Trek get away from the original series?” even though it has nothing to do with the setting.

No offense meant, because you raise a lot of good points on why Star Trek works as a setting, but I fundamentally disagree with the Star Wars take here. Historically, Star Wars has centered around the Skywalker saga for Personal (George Lucas) and Business (Disney) reasons, not creative ones.

Star Wars offers an excellent setting with a framework to discuss ethics and morality baked directly into the universe. Stories like Knights of the Old Republic have shown that you can get away from the main Saga and still tell an engaging story rooted in the universe that Saga created. Tons of old Legends content didn’t tie directly into the original films and were excellent.

Andor has also shown that it’s also just that bad writing is what leads to IP burnout. I couldn’t finish Book of Boba Fett or Mandalorian season 3, but have watched Andor 3 times.

I think the problem is that there is less often something to be said if you agree. Every now and then you might have something to add that fleshes out the idea or adds additional context, but generally if I totally agree with a comment I just upvote it.

On the other hand, when you disagree with something your response will, by logical necessity, be different from the parent comment.

So if you want to prioritize “adding something novel” there’s a logical bias towards comments that disagree since only some percentage of agreement will tick that box.

Otherwise you end up with a bunch of comments that literally or figuratively add up to “this”.

Man, I really think you should either saddle up, don’t block ads, or use a free, non-ad-supported alternative.

Sync is made by a single dev who uses it as his main source of income. It’s not made by a corporation. Taking the fruits of someone’s labor, that they have priced to make it worth their time, feels kinda shitty to me.

If you really feel it’s so much better than the alternatives that you won’t even use them, then pay what the person making it feels they need to keep making it.

I work in the film industry and can say, with certainty, that TNG was not shot with the same consideration.

Television back then knew it was being mastered for SDTV and the artists had a good idea of what it meant they could get away with compared to something that would be screened in 35mm. Final screening medium has always been the most important consideration, not capture medium.

Audiences have also gotten less forgiving of visual quality and less willing to suspend disbelief as the bar for quality has steadily risen. It means that shows are both working on higher definition target mediums and under more scrutiny than ever.

Like, I love TNG but go watch and tell me that it looks half as good as SNW.

I agree with the other poster that you need to define what you even mean when you say free will. IMO, strict determinism is not incompatible with free will. It only provides the mechanism. I posted this in another thread where this came up:

The implications of quantum mechanics just reframes what it means to not have free will.

In classical physics, given the exact same setup you make the exact same choice every time.

In Quantum mechanics, given the same exact setup, you make the same choice some percentage of the time.

One is you being an automaton while the other is you being a flipped coin. Neither of those really feel like free will.

Except.

We are looking at this through an implied assumption that the brain is some mechanism, separate from “us”, which we are forced to think “through”. That the mechanisms of the brain are somehow distorting or restricting what the underlying self can do.

But there is no deeper “self”. We are the brain. We are the chemical cascade bouncing around through the neurons. We are the kinetic billiard balls of classical physics and the probability curves of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t matter if the universe is deterministic and we would always have the same response to the same input or if it’s statistical and we just have a baked “likelihood” of that response.

The way we respond or the biases that inform that likelihood is still us making a choice, because we are that underlying mechanism. Whether it’s deterministic or not it’s just an implementation detail of free will, not a counterargument.

That’s not the actual reason. Hexbear was openly advocating for their “army” to brigade other instances once it was federating. It just so happens that the basis of that brigading was going to be political.

Lemmy.world pre-emptivly decided it wasn’t worth the hassle of having to deal with that.