[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

In the end a contract is only as valid as the enforcement behind it.

Between two people of the same nation, a court willing to say "Yeah that's valid" and enforce it with the power of the state makes a contract quite powerful.

Between two entities that cannot agree on a means to arbitration, or have that means enforced on them, it's basically only as valuable as their willingness to accept it.

"A contract is a contract is a contract... but only between Ferengi" might seem like a straight up dismissal of another's species rights to be negotiated with, but its also a warning. If the Ferengi authorities don't have the power and will to enforce your contract with a Klingon living in free space, then a contract lacks the enforcement clauses that make it absolute.

So how binding is it? As binding as the parties allow it to be.

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Let's imagine the baby Gorn start off the way you describe, a perpetual small hunter that also produces more offspring. As they age they get bigger and stronger before they finally die.

The adults who take care of their offspring have an advantage over adults who do not care for their offspring, and possibly even more over the babies who never become adults.

There is another selection barrier as well. If all you have are baby gorn, what happens when you run out of hosts? This can easily happen if the hosts are over-hunted. If baby gorn pop out and there are no hosts, and they die out in a few years or even months, that's an evolutionary dead end. The ones which can last a long time until new hosts are available will eventually be selected for.

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem with crowning The Voyage Home as the best Star trek movie is that the Enterprise is absent.

It's not like you need the Enterprise for good Star Trek. Many of the best episodes have not really used the ship. But for a movie to be the pinnacle of Star Trek in fan reactions, the absence of the Enterprise is keenly felt.

If I was going to put any movie up against The Wrath of Khan it would be the Undiscovered Country. Everything I like about TWoK returns in The Undiscovered Country. An iconic and interesting antagonist? Check. A starship battle decided by clever outthinking of the enemy instead of a situation where the main character and antagonist end up in punching match? Also check. Kirk confronting his place in a world that keeps passing him by? Also check.

If I had to ask why does TWoK beat out TUC, and it only does by the narrowest of margins, it's that TWoK has slightly more universal themes. The Undiscovered Country is about the end of the Cold War, and if you grew up in that time, it resonates strongly. Treating your old enemy with respect, moving past your old hate, these are things which landed much harder in the early 1990s than the early 2020s.

But growing old, life passing you by, old mistakes coming back to haunt you, the danger of revenge, all those stand out today as well as they did when the movie first aired.

TWoK aged better than the others, though not by much. Many of the other movies are very, very good. I personally rank TUC and TWoK almost even.

I do think TWoK has in my mind soured a little for the same reason that First Contact did. Its success ensured we'd get so many attempts to dip into the same well again. But that's a very subjective issue, and one which it's hard to really hold against TWoK.

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

They seem to be able to repair homogenous tissue extremely quickly, but complex micro-structures are much harder to produce. Nerves, lungs, all complex.

Heck even producing Romulan ribosomes was beyond them.

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

As a general rule, unless given an explicit explanation for discontinuity on screen, it should be the explanation of last resort.

The problem is that as an explanation it can be used for everything. Consider any shot production error that might happen. Actually let's use one of my favorite TNG episodes for discontinuity: Parallels. In the final scene of Parallels, there is a continuity error, where a bow switches sides.

Does this mean we should perform an inception style deep dive and say perhaps Worf is still jumping universes? Could we use this to, in fact, explain ANY minor production error?

I mean we could. But that's probably not what's intended by the authors.

For example I am very much a fan of the idea that early in TNG's run the Ferengi still valued gold and later on they do not, and this matches up with better and better replicator technology eventually being able to create gold at scale. But also, maybe it's just temporal discontinuity.

Can we reconcile Picard's relationship with his mother with what little we see from TNG and what we see in ST: Picard? This can be a fun exercise. But we can also say "Eh not the same Picard."

The idea that Khan is destined to happen is a heads on explanation for the intractable problem of Star Trek is rerooting its history into our modern history. Star Trek is, after all, a vision of our future and that vision has changed from the 1960s. This is a change designed to add some meaning to the show.

On the other hand, if "time pushback" is used to explain anything and everything on the show, it runs the risk of becoming flat out meaningless.

So when would I consider it an acceptable explanation? Whenever it's given as the explicit explanation, or maybe if there's a very clear connection.

1

In Star Trek Picard we see Raffi living at rock bottom for a while. She has no job after her discharge from Starfleet, and is clearly not doing as well. She describes her life as humiliation and rage.

And yet by modern standards she has a home, food, and power. Her drug usage isn't condoned but she's left largely alone to do it. By modern 21st century standards its a very soft landing.

Does it get worse than this? What is the worst possible economic outcome someone living on 24th Century Earth is likely to face.

The events of DS9: Past Tense imply that things aren't as bad as sanctuary districts and mass homelessness, but there's a lot of range between that and where Raffi landed. So what evidence do we have about how bad it can get?

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

While it was played as a joke, the whole "was she hiding something" had me on first watch going "but everyone is hiding something, surely"

Spock was highlighting this with his trademark precision.

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Ok but NuTrek gave us the glorious spatial distortion warp effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCCYWTAA2wQ

[-] maplealmond@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Jumping on your notes of Criminal Justice: In the episode "Ensign Ro" there was this throwaway line

RO: Well, if he's sent to the stockade on Jaros Two, tell him to request a room in the east wing. The west wing gets awfully hot in the afternoons.

When I saw this as teen it did not really strongly register with me. Thinking about it now, though, with the real world context of prisoners dying in cells because of heat, I find it significantly more disturbing. The Federation has the power to control the weather. Energy is cheap enough to be free. They have cells which are uncomfortably hot.

I have noticed that even among the most liberal, high minded members of society on the topic of justice, or the most anarchist-lefty abolitionists of prison, certain crimes still stoke the fires of vengeance. Hurting children or engaging in treason still stokes some serious desire for vengeance, and I would not be surprised if a degree of discomfort as applied to punishment never goes away. The more the Federation faces attack or external threats, the more the public might be swayed to making the criminals "pay"

5
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by maplealmond@startrek.website to c/daystrominstitute@startrek.website

In the finale of Picard Season 3, the Titan, armed with a 100 year old cloaking device, manages to successfully evade detection by the Borg controlled fleet. This raises some questions. How on earth is it that the Titan was able to accomplish this with a seemingly obsolete cloaking device?

I postulate two things, the first is that what we call the cloaking device is merely one component in a whole system of invisibility, and the second is that StarFleet was certainly obeying the letter of the treaty (Pegasus and Section 31 aside) by not developing cloaking technology, but was, in reality, building ships ready to accept cloaking devices at a moment's notice.

What do we know about cloaking devices, and how are they defeated? The cloaking device ties into the ship’s deflector shield control (as per TOS: The Enterprise Incident) and it obtains invisibility in part by bending light around the ship (as per comparison to the Aldean planetary shield in TNG: The Bough Breaks and description from DISL Into the Forest I Go)

However, using the deflector shield to remain unobserved does not necessarily require a cloaking device. As per the opening of TOS: Assignment: Earth, the Enterprise was able to use its defector shield to remain unobserved to 20th century technology.

And there are countless examples of a cloaking device being imperfect. The most famous example is likely Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where a torpedo set to target ionized gas is able to trace down the location of a Bird of Prey, summarized as “The thing has to have a tailpipe.”

But that is not the only example. Detecting energy distortions, subspace radiation, high speed warp signatures from neutrino radiation, and looking for tetryon particles all worked as forms of passive detection. (I will not cover active detection mechanisms such as the tachyon net, as the Borg fleet never deployed them.)

To add to all this, the clocking device is very small. A device about the size and weight of a man can make a ship invisible.

Here I switch to speculation.

First, I suggest that the cloaking device is primarily a computer. It is not the thing which makes the ship invisible - you could plug it into a building and it would not work, unless it has its own projectors. It must be plugged into a ship with a deflector array, to enhance and perfect its ability to make the ship invisible.

Second, the quality of the ship is more important than the quality of the cloaking device. A cloaking device “merely” needs to look at all incoming radiation of all types, and calculate how to move it around the ship for total silence. But it cannot protect against a ship which emits radiation, leaks gas, etc. Thus, a ship designed with high quality shields and high quality emission control will be more stealthy.

Side speculation: The design decision to not use an antimatter core in the first Bird of Prey we see during TOS: Balance of Terror (their power is simple impulse only implies fusion) and the later TNG-era decision to use a forced singularity despite the downsides, may be rooted in the notion that the Romulans felt that emissions from antimatter annihilation were a liability. Selling the Klingons the cloak and not telling them about this problem seems entirely on brand for the Romulan Star Empire.

There is something of an exception here, the phased cloak. A ship out of phase would, presumably, emit radiation which is also out of phase. (Extrapolated from TNG: The Next Phase where Ro shoots Riker in the head and he does not notice.) The phased cloak represented an attempt to fix emission control on a completely new level. But the phased cloak had problems, and is is seemingly a dead end for the ability to fire while cloaked. Plus, research was a treaty violation.

So now we return to the Titan. We know that plugging a 100 year old cloaking device into the Titan produced an invisibility effect which worked admirably. StarFleet may have seemingly kept their commitment to not build ships with cloaking devices, but this was always a hand wave agreement. StarFleet was ready for the day when they needed invisible ships, and having ships ready to accept cloaking devices was seemingly an unspoken but very intentional design consideration.

When the Titan needed to be invisible, she was missing only one piece of the puzzle.

maplealmond

joined 1 year ago