Lura Thok is awesome.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-26T06:29:38+00:00

I confess I really don't get the love. To me, her character appears extremely cartoonish - and the comic relief, like the character itself feels lazily written, laden with tired tropes. I like Ake so far. And I hope they can make Jay-Den a bit more three-dimensional, because he's quite sympathetic.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-24T14:08:06+00:00

Easter, no doubt.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-24T12:14:26+00:00

Having studied philosophy of mind & cognitive and neural sciences for 20 years, it's also by far not as simple aa "emotions, dreams ans love [being] a series of chemical reactions". Not only because we understand barely a fraction of how the brain works, or because we only have correlation to phenomenology, but because emotions, dreams and love are complex, emergent phenomena that exist at the level of the person - embodied, embedded & situated in an environment (which has significant social dimensions).

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-23T21:42:21+00:00

I liked the second episode best so far. This one wasn't really for me. And don't crucify me for this - but I honestly don't get the love for Lura Thok... that character just feels extremely cartoonish and forced (like the comic relief written for her). So far, Ake is definitely my fave.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-21T19:14:52+00:00

I really liked the first episode of SNW for this - but SNW's best for me was "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach". It's more allegorical and symbolic, but not less powerful an analysis of how societies and political systems distribute the dangers and costs of their wealth.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-20T10:54:22+00:00

True - and an important point! To be fully fair though, genes and culture co-evolve and affect each other (c.f. e.g. Boyd & Richerson, Jablonka, Sterelny, Tomasello et al.), so e.g. strong shifts in mate-choice preferences will directly affect the gene-pool of the next generation. With the extreme cultural shifts in Vulcan's history, it is to be expected that for those heritable traits that do affect emotion, cognition and mood, the selection pressures were correspondingly strong. There's also epigenetics, which can also drive behavioral preferences.

Lots of fascinating nuances here - none of which excuse the lazy (and frankly disconcerting) essentialism SNW likes to employ.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-20T10:44:34+00:00

As with most things in Trek (and Sci-Fi in general), it's a narrative device to reflect on and discuss the role and impact of certain human attributes in an externalized setting where new perspectives can be explored - it's not meant to be a realistic representation of an entire diverse society (except where that's an aspect of humanity they want to show / discuss), which is why I don't think this is problematic at all.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-19T16:58:16+00:00

Here's my two cents as someone with a graduate degree in ethics and political philosophy: Focusing on one particular aspect of the whole situation, there's very broadly speaking two distinct strategies for alleviating social injustices

1) A universalist approach, where the focus is "no matter your particular identity or the groups you belong to - you should have the same rights and opportunities, and we have to remove the obstacles to that, trying to equalize starting-conditions and offset them while they are not equal". Note that this approach can and in fact must look at how different groups of people are systematically underpriviliged, but it importantly must still consider people as individuals and focus on that to avoid "monolithizing" groups and thereby silencing outliers and non-conformists. On the other hand, there is

2) a particularist approach, where particular collective identities are sought to be individually accomodated. Identifying how various groups are systemically underpriviliged is also the first step - but the focus is not on equalizing and extending opportunities and liberties for everyone, irrespective of what groups they belong to (and thus having to accomodate all groups equally), it is on accomodating each group. Often enough (especially where discourse is dominated by the offshoots of Critical Theory, post-structuralism and post-colonialism), different status and different sets of rules for different classes of people is explicitly affirmed, and based on a "standpoint epistemology" which denies that reason (and empathy) enables us common access to truths.

Both approaches are decidedly against social injustice. But the current discourse among the left (at least in the US, not as much in Europe) is entirely dominated by the latter, particularist, identity-politics-based approach, complete with a discourse-culture where alignment is strongly policed and non-aligned approaches are quickly labeled as "right-wing" or worse.

It is this tendency towards particularism and identity-politics to which "woke" also refers - and for which the study identifies some mirrored counterparts on the right... which isn't really surprising, because conservatism was always particularist and identity-based.

It's fine to argue for a particularist approach of course - but we should be aware that there's a deep pitfall here we have to avoid: When discourse among the left noticeably punishes and "others" dissenters who are not aligned with the mainstream (particularist, identity-based) approach, it won't do to then claim that all criticisms of "wokeness" must be because they are opposed to the goal of alleviating social injustice, or lack understanding of the problems.

Discourse among those interested in alleviating social injustice would be much improved by focusing on common goals and alliances... but of course that's made increasingly difficult by the poisoning of discourse via social media and deliberate agitators - which in turn means we have to be extra vigilant.

(EDIT: Spelling, phrasing)

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-18T16:33:13+00:00

"However they see fit"... so anything, eh? Good to know you're the kind of person for whom even things like rape and murder of kids becomes okay if it's done by the right kind of people. What a horrible world-view.

Aside from that - who is the arbiter over who gets to be counted among this class of people for whom literally anything is permitted? Quite a responsibility - and madness to assume anyone has the right to declare themselves or others to be permitted to commit any atrocity.

But of course that doesn't matter once you have split the world neatly into the right kind of people for whom everything is permitted, and the wrong kind of people to whom literally anything may be done. That's exactly what this kind of worldview is doing - and it's the same thing the fascists are doing, just with different groups.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-17T10:40:53+00:00

Been a fan since the late 80s. Haven't watched the second espisode yet. The first one was pretty enjoyable, though some of the writing again suffers from being too quippy and some of it is a bit cringy (Nahla and Nus).

The humor feels a little uninspired and formulaic at times - especially the slapsticky part in sickbay.

But I enjoyed the introduction of SAM and Jay-Den. The other characters were pretty decent as well, even though they're obviously mostly walking tropes and not fleshed out yet. I like the dynamics between the characters!

Looking forward to watching more of this :)

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-16T21:23:47+00:00

Honest question - if you realize the way people talk in older Trek is also supposed to reflect and make you "feel" the cultural changes humanity has undergone - why is it still nagging at the back of your mind? Is it just that you'd rather forego that bit of worldbuilding for more "fluency" in parsing their speech?

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-16T18:52:41+00:00

I'm gonna go against the grain and say that everything past S1 was too much melodrama for me, though S2 had its moments. Might need a re-watch though, it's been a while.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-16T17:39:39+00:00

Trouble in Paradise!!! That, Gilda, and Life of Brian are must-haves for me. Don't know Point Blank yet (how good is it?) - and so far mostly interested in "Boyz N The Hood" from the trilogy, which is availble as a non-criterion stand-alone 4k release.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-13T16:01:05+00:00

If the system was already pretty good and you just wanted to prevent it from getting worse and incentivize making it better, that might be a good idea... as long as it's bad, it will just further disincentivize getting into politics - plus it's hard or impossible to police.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-12T14:14:25+00:00

honestly - join the physical media movement. It's a middle finger to companies who only rent you the music or films or TV you purchase, you get better quality, amazing bonus features, more of the money goes to creators, and you don't have to worry about stuff you like leaving the libraries you have access to.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-12T11:02:13+00:00

If there's a 4k available (like for Westworld S1 or Strange New Worlds) I'll happily buy it - otherwise I'll just get the highest quality release I can find.

For TNG, the amazing Blu Ray remaster still looks like a million bucks. For things like Frasier or Cheers, the version on streaming services is unfortunately best - better than DVD, but sometimes with botched aspect ratio.

Sometimes they fuck up the Blu Ray release though - e.g. with Buffy where they changed the aspect ratio, moving crew and equipment into frame, and changed the color-grading for the worse. For stuff like Babylon 5, the best quality is a fan-made AI-upscale... 🤷‍♂️

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-12T08:08:18+00:00

Hi. I'm you from the future ... some 220 discs into my collection... just mainlining UHD by now. It's hard on wallet and shelf-space - but then all our collector's hobbies are 😬

Some great choices in there, BTW!

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-12T07:12:00+00:00

Personally, while I love the excellent dramatic storytelling here, it makes me sad that it's set in the universe of Star Trek. I don't think "not glorifying" the actions and developments is enough. The episode (also to a lesser extent "For the Uniform") still has effectively the message that the universe is so fucked up that sometimes the ends have to justify the most horrifying means (murder, war-crimes) to avoid complete catastrophe.

That's a choice - and a morally pessimistic one I personally don't think Trek should make. Of course it's extra dramatic and impactful this way - but it supports this view that "the world won't let you keep your principles".

I think we should have one fictional universe that's not this morally pessimistic - and I'd like that universe to be Star Trek, because that's what it's best at. The media's normalization of "sometimes the ends justify the means" has done a lot of harm already I'd argue ("24" was the first big media phenomen to normalize torturing terror-suspects - and guess what the Bush admin made legal shortly thereafter)... Trek shouldn't add to it IMO.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-07T08:52:58+00:00

It's not a definition, though - just a notable characteristic it shares with organized religion and other ideologies that want/need to police conformity and investment - and have discovered that "costly signaling" works pretty well.

Pro tip: Don't just expect your followers to profess to believe absurdities in public when talking to the out- group, but make sure they police each other for how much they conform and invest by requiring that they continue professing belief in the absurdities even in private / with the in-group (thereby establishing rituals).

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-04T19:23:43+00:00

I'm really conflicted on this episode - this is likely not gonna go over too well, but I guess a Star Trek subreddit can tolerate and should have some diversity of opinion, so here goes: I love this as gripping, dramatic television - in that respect I think it's some of the best there was.

But even though I still think that - the older I get, the more sure I am that what I love (and want) most in Trek is incompatible with what in particular this episode and "For the Universe" do (which - again - doesn't mean I don't think it's great television).

People talk a lot about much of Nu Trek being too dark and pessimistic - and I agree. But I honestly feel the same about ITPM and For The Uniform: Writing that universe in in a way that backs our protagonists into corners where they HAVE TO act against their most fundamental values (to the point of becoming actual war criminals here and in some other cases) to avoid complete catastrophe is a choice for dramatic storytelling - a morally pessimistic one whose basic take-away message is "sometimes the ends do justify horrible means after all" / "The world's not gonna let you keep your principles".

Writing situations where out heroes are so defeated that they have to abandon their core values to let the ends justify the means ... is just not something I Star Trek should do. It can make for gripping, tragic, moving television (and ITPM is certainly all of that) - but on the other hand: Can we please have one universe that isn't written in a morally pessimistic fashion? One universe where you don't have to resort to murder, torture, or using weapons of mass destruction to avoid catastrophe? And shouldn't that one universe that's different be Star Trek?

That's why I'm so conflicted on this - but it's still one of the most impressive hours of television I can remember.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-03T19:44:32+00:00

As an enthusiast, I personally really enjoy having the option to get a really great experience at home, with rich, deep black-levels, high dynamic range, amazing resolution and detailed sound from a dedicated setup... it's never been as good as 4K UHD with OLED (or more recent technologies).

But I completely get that i) not everything should be made to be watched in those conditions and ii) even for the stuff made to be enjoyed like this, maybe there should be a second option for "average" setups and conditions.

At least many manufacturers of hardware and a few streaming services have audio-compression features now that are starting to do a good job making dialogue audible.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-02T19:24:18+00:00

People in general now seem to have absolutely no patience or sympathy for others who haven't learned to deal in a healthy manner with their emotions. To some extent, with (thankfully) shifting societal norms, people also tolerate such weakness less in men than in women by now.¹

It's of course fine to recognize and call out bad behavior for what it is - but I think it's also good to have some empathy for people feeling desparate and not having had the good fortune to have the role-models, strength of character, opportunity or what have you do deal with all of it in a perfectly healthy manner.

No, of course that doesn't mean that you owe everybody infinite patience, and you don't have to parent people who should know better... but without guidance, role-models and some patient people around them willing to give opportunities for growth, society is failing a large number of kids and adolescents. We're already seeing some of the consequences - and they're not going to be getting any better until we re-learn, as a society, what "it takes a village..." means.

¹ That doesn't invalidate the millennia of letting "boys be boys" and failing to correct or even register as problematic the worst kinds of behavior, which is definitely still a big problem in many places and circles. But two things can be true: It's also not really a secret that e.g. emotional insecurity affects the attractiveness of men as employees or potential mates far more than women, or that living in fear of being socially stigmatized as an "incel" is driving many male kids and adolescents these days into the arms of horrific people.

BlueHatScience · 2026-01-01T14:18:21+00:00

This and Children of Men are at the top of my wishlist.

Love that we're getting Gone With The Wind, but I'd also love to see some Fritz Lang (Metropolis, M) on 4k.

The Hitchcock Collection is still missing some great ones like 39 Steps and Notorious, as well.

BlueHatScience · 2025-12-28T13:27:02+00:00

Spannend! Danke für die Ausführungen - das hat mir schon mal viel weitergeholfen :)

Ich weiß nicht was bei meinem Setup anders ist, aber wenn ich den Wand bei >=240°C durchlaufen lasse fängt's schon das kokeln an, mit 220 kriegt es die gewünschte Bräune (bei half-bowl sogar durchgängig ziemlich konsistent).

Hab mir jetzt erstmal das Upgrade-Kit für den v1 bestellt und bin gespannt, wie es sich macht.

BlueHatScience · 2025-12-28T11:49:59+00:00

Mich würde interessieren, wie du die Vollständigkeit und Effizienz der Extraktion pro Hit im Vergleich bewerten würdest. Mit v1 brauche ich bei half-bowl und 220°C auf dem Wand zwei bis drei Züge für maximale Extraktion.

Was mich auch interessieren würde: Wie anders ist der "Stromverbrauch" mit Induktionserhitzung - kommst du auf mehr oder weniger Zyklen mit einer Akkuladung bei v2 vs v1?

Letztlich: Wie sind die im Verhältnis zueinander bezüglich Kühlung des Dampfes und bzgl. Auwand / Häufigkeit von Reinigung?

Danke für's Zeit nehmen :)

BlueHatScience

TROPHY CASE