Of all the weird aliens , they never really went with different skin very often. Just a few.
Or fur suits.
Fur humans makes a lot of sense Or scales. Feathers.
Skin like squids.
Penguin skin
Armadillo.
What about horns ? Aside from the andoreans, antenna.
What about crab eyes.
Oh and little mouth grabber hands like crabs.
That would be so handy.
Extra eyes.
Or just extra arms.
So many creative options to explore. but easier to slather latex on the face I guess.
I actually really like lwaxana. I like her because she’s flawed… A little self absorbed. But always adventurous. A little dramatic and most of all almost always confident except in her vulnerable moments.
She’s not a great person. A little toxic at times. But she tries. I think she has a good heart. She’s more relatable than most of the perfect Starfleet characters.
And I like the flashy costumes.
Yeah I think big hubs are too problematic.
Yeah I also liked the show subs where people theorized and discussed details.
The only thing I miss from reddit is my favorite small niche subs.
Invisible bicycles.
Where people take photos of people on bicycles and Photoshop out the bicycle. You can request or do the edits.
Forbiddensnacks
Photos of stuff that looks like delicious food but is not food.
There was another with short videos of animals in sync. Like chickens or dogs .
Oh and another that was photos of cats, sitting on clear glass. The photos were from the underside.
There was another photoshop battle one. Where there was a prompt and then everyone would submit a photoshopped mash of the prompt.
But I bet AI has ruined that one.
What is this. People posted pictures of stuff that the community tried to figure out what it was
Retro futurism. Just posts about that.
I think I miss forbidden snacks the most.
Im also someone with a million hobbies. So I really miss those. Some are here too. Bigger ones like 3d printing and photography but not stained glass. Not sure if there is one for Blender. I should check.
Subs for specific games like remedy games, zelda. Animal crossing.
Honestly I’m from the time where there used to be forums for these things and I liked forums just fine.
I get that smaller population means less niche communities.
I’m okay with it. But I will be honest and say I miss my niche indie subs. I hate that it’s been ruined. And that it’s dead.
Facebook groups still exist though and many are acceptable. Especially for the indie games and hobbies.
You know if you have a printed piece of paper, a magazine. Or even a TV with a face on it, that a camera can’t tell if it’s a real human or not.
A lot of cycle trackers right now sell that data and there is some concern it could be used to find women who have miscarried and charge them with a crime.
Something like your idea is safer for women to use.
So smoking and vaping. Kinda gross in my opinion (but to each their own). But you know what I dislike about them both the most. ?
They have shown me just how much I breathe in other people’s breath and that’s just horrifying.
And I don’t like being reminded visually.
That actress, Fionnula Flanagan, played Eloise Hawking on LOST.
She’s actually in a ton of films. And in 3 star trek episodes.
Really like her.
It’s not the best choice of font. I agree.
I think it’s designed a little odd. The riker body is made into the clock face. So you can’t just print it and add it to an existing clock. You also can’t easily change the number font.
This isn’t too tricky to fix though.
I’m working on a remix that will allow you to print just the body parts and swap the hands out on an existing clock.
Would be easy to make. If you want, I could definitely do this.
Lately it’s been almost tos non stop. It used to have more variety. Bout time.
Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
Some argue that even the research that’s not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
That’s how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
It’s not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don’t actually produce or make anything.
I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone’s scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And in theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I’ll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
But. People have read some studies on this. And think “I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head”.
And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
It’s insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don’t understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
It’s things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.
Basically it’s that the general public doesn’t understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.
It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.
That and companies don’t want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it’s because people don’t understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn’t support.
There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.
Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.
But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).
Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it’s to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.
It’s trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.
Social research is confusing to people who don’t do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.
But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.
They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren’t doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn’t include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it’s not valid.
It’s basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.
The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.
Also, it’s more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.
Then the study was about their parents.
See. That’s the point. The way that the data is collected is part of the study.
We don’t claim that any data collection method is the one true prefer way to collect. Instead we collect data from multiple sources.
Often times the sources are chosen for the availability.
For instance. Online surveys are much easier to send out than finding individuals in real life if the thing you are researching is stigmatized or there is no register of these people.
Survey polls have many validity concerns. These are well known in psych research. No one takes them at face value.
The limitations and possible influence of survey data is always discussed in the paper.
Researchers do not ignore this fact.
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That’s the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don’t seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that’s not a fair study, it’s only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That’s what it says in the paper. It’s on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers.
The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
There is no “questioning” . The research is only intended to uncover mechanisms.
The research does not investigate the validity of being trans. None of their line of research does that.
If you see it that way, maybe actually read it instead of believing what other people say about it.
Yeah they call it shipping.
Though it’s basically the same as Japanese boy love. Yaoi