As a highly sensitive person, what I’ve learned for me is:
I loved my course on patterns. It was tough, but I now regularly feel like I can apply mastery of this tricky subject to my software projects. The course used a variety of techniques:
Together, this taught us
I appreciate this approach because patterns are an inherently fuzzy subject.
It’s more like languages evolved to incorporate the most common idioms and patterns of their ancestors. ASM abstracted common binary sequences. C abstracted common ASM control structures and call stacks. Java leaned hard on object orientation to enable compositional and inheritence-based patterns widely used in C and early OO languages. Python baselines a lot of those patterns, and makes things like the Null Object pattern unnecessary.
I cried watching Measure of a Man. It’s a gift to humanity. But Ad Astra Per Aspera clearly overtakes it imo. It doesn’t ask just about the implications of the law, but about what it - and society, and its constituents - should aspire to be. It’s less about military codes and an individual’s selfishness (Maddox), telling a more universally applicable story still firmly entrenched in Trek lore.
Had to look this up on Memory Alpha. The base principle for both replicators and transporters is confusingly termed “matter-energy conversion”, yet doesn’t appear to create matter from pure energy. Rather, it seems to use energy to convert matter from/to atomic or subatomic particles (for replicators and transporters, respectively). During the process, the matter is “energized”, and - I’m no expert, but - I’d imagine the subatomic particles in the transporter’s matter stream exhibit energy-like properties.
So replicators do rely on atomic matter stores (often recycled from waste or unnecessary items), and I’d still expect the conversion processes to use a lot of energy, but not as much as creating the raw matter.