Zoraptor

I suspect a lot of professional reviewers only watch the episodes they're given for advance screenings. If you do that you get a rather skewed view of quality*. There's also potentially the, hmm, Game of Thrones S8/ Bethesda effect of reviewers not really wanting to give something with a Reputation bad reviews. Many of the complaints about nuTrek by their nature require extended watching- or at least, multiple episodes to be watched- to come to the fore. Things like the massive plot holes, inconsistent plotting, logic gaps etc are often only evident when you can compare them with what happened previous/ after. Fans, by their nature, tend to both watch the whole series and notice their issues because they spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. Some will forgive anything of the subject of their fandom, some start a Cato Censoriusesque [programname] delendam esse campaign. *imagine watching the TNG episode about warp destroying the fabric of the universe, but in isolation and with little to no background on the series. With that proviso it's not such a bad episode because you wouldn't know half the stuff that makes it bad. In context though, it's awful. That would, of course, also require you as showrunner/ publicist to think that Force of Nature was the best episode to show reviewers...

I was a bit unfair on Picard S1, up to a point I rather liked it. I think a lot of people wanted TNG S8 instead though. Once at the point I didn't like though... people say you can't retroactively ruin episodes you've already seen, but I reckon Picard S1 (and for that matter, Discovery S1) is a good argument you can.

Haven't seen the new episodes yet (weeks away at the rate I watch TV nowadays) but iirc the previous Gorn episodes were non IP infringing Alien Franchise rip offs down to the first being Alien and the second being Aliens. The first couple of seasons were very underwhelming really. Last season was like a completely different and far better program.

Eh. 'Might be' is doing some pretty heavy lifting there. Recent history suggests that every country will bury such accusations for as long as possible, deal with them in a minimal manner and do so after being forced into it and- preferably- after the perpetrators are dead or too old to stand trial. See: Australian warcrimes in Afghanistan. Not directly applicable but recent/ ongoing and still the only person convicted is... the guy who blew the whistle. More applicable; the whole Stolen Generations (stealing Aboriginal babies) issues, not many convictions there for all the abuse and slavery. Similar issues in Canada, and the church related issues in Ireland and elsewhere. NZ's historic abuse in care scandal. Waited until a lot of the victims were dead to hold an inquiry (a cynic might say to cut down on compensation payments), no convictions despite the guy who ran Lake Alice 'hospital' being alive (deliberately waited until he wasn't mentally competent). The whole Jimmy Saville issue in the UK. Systematically covered up by pretty much every establishment entity. And that's completely off the top of my head. Having said that, if there were truly no consequences there wouldn't be any reason not to release a list. If you're Trump you probably don't want to give too much impetus to such things though, it's the sort of issue where you can get runaway momentum which won't always be dissipated by toothless no fault public inquiries decades later designed specifically to do nothing while making people feel like something is being done.

It also has that rarest of rarities, Adam Nagaitis not playing a bad guy. OK, maybe not quite as rare as Burn Gorman not playing a bad guy. Chernobyl is a really weird one for me. It's simultaneously both the best and most flawed series of the past ten years. It's not just the "what is the price of lies?" tagline demanding accuracy, it's that the changes were narratively unnecessary half the time*. Why send Akmetov (?) off to stare into the reactor on pain of being shot when you had the alternative of the three valve closure volunteers historically not actually being volunteers but just being the first three on shift alphabetically? If you want to show The System not caring that's a perfectly fine example which actually happened. Why imply they died then admit they didn't at the end? Why use the Bridge of Death myth if you've already got the historical firefighters and plant workers to use? It's not like what really happened wasn't dramatic, and making stuff up for the drim drams cheapens what really happens. It's a massive compliment to how good the good bits are that I've gone out of my way to watch it so many times. *and occasionally badly so. The Soviet Minister of Coal at the time actually was an ex miner. If you want to skewer a system for having out of touch suit wearers appointed for ideological reasons who have no idea about what their workers actually do you might consider a documentary on the MBA types running post merger Boeing, uh, into the ground.

Are you saying you'd oppose violence and criminality in Russia as a way to achieve political change or around disagreements how the Russian government defines its geopolitical views? Would you support protestors attacking and damaging Russian public sector institutions like the Duma or is it only Russian military sites you support being attacked? And then would you support left-wing groups breaking the law in protests or is it only anti Russian groups that should be allowed to break the law? Yeah, the UK isn't Russia. But every British PM since Thatcher would like it to be when it comes to state repression and has used 1984 as a guidebook rather than cautionary tale. This isn't even protection for Britain. It's protection for fricking Israel, and a blatant attempt to silence free speech and free expression. The fact that the vast majority of Brits don't support Israel and didn't support invading Iraq in 2003 is irrelevant when the politicians do and did; the only time they ever listen is when you threaten something they value. Like post career company directorships or being reelected (in 4 years for Starmer, so he doesn't care, yet). Indeed, it's particularly ironic for that Quisling, who built much of his reputation on being anti 2003 war yet is now staunchly pro genocide. The last British politician with a scintilla of honour and integrity was Robin Cook, and he died nearly twenty years ago.

Heh, last time the Islands of Tranquility/ Humanitarian Cities came up Israel managed to imply that they'd actually killed 400k people since they were for Gaza's entire 1.8 million people. Watching media contort themselves trying not to use concentration camps/ ethnic cleansing for what so very clearly is a plan for both is as always grimly amusing. And still no ICC indictment for Katz.

Well yeah. Quite apart from depopulating Diego Garcia for a US base British conduct in their African colonies is well within living memory. And that involved mass ethnic cleansing, concentration camps (with wonderful euphemisms like 'villagisation'; albeit that's a step back from 'islands of tranquility' or whatever it was Hagari came up with for the concentration camps in Gaza) including 'work camps', torture (with an active policy of gelding captives) and murder quite apart from the 'legit' military stuff. You might think from their rhetoric about it all being in the past that the Brits might have apologised, paid reparations, maybe put a few people on trial. Yeah, nah; their policy is that it just sort of randomly happened with no input from them, Britain had nothing to do with it and all complaints have to be addressed to their legal successor states like Kenya. Due to, and I am not making this up, a ruling about Patagonian Toothfish. They did eventually give them some money to get them to Just Shut Up, though with no apology or admission of having done anything wrong; indeed, with a reiteration that it was all Kenya's problem. Though, of course, the successor state did not get any of the relevant files from the old colonial state for some strange reason, they went to, hmm, Whitehall UK. Where they were promptly 'misfiled' and lost. Funny that. Not just a Brit thing either, see the Nama/ Herero genocides of Germany I mentioned a week ago and how they tried to minimise and disclaim responsibility. Though at least (well, 'at least') that is out of living memory now. And people wonder why the bleating rhetoric about how it was so long ago and they're really sorry from euros rings extremely hollow.

Well if British State Media says it's ok to designate a peaceful protest group as- and they do their best to obfuscate it- Terrorists then I guess it's OK. And of course The Law must be followed. So I expect zero complaints from Bruce about RT and people following Russian Law. Heh, if it was in Russia it'd 100% be about silencing dissent, because it 100% is about silencing dissent. That law was designed specifically to be abused in this precise way with this precise intention. Things which are terrorism in the UK: Chucking some paint on planes. Can you imagine how much terror it engendered in, um, uh... someone. Things which aren't terrorism in the UK: Blowing up children, torturing doctors to death and blowing up other doctors with their children; starvation as a method of war, collective punishment, waging aggressive war, deliberate and sustained targeting of civilians, journalists, medics, intellectuals; mass detention without trial. And stealing land for settlers from its original inhabitants isn't colonialism. It was the final command of Starmer: Reject the Evidence of Your Eyes and Ears.

Has the XBox/ Gaming division of MS ever made a genuine profit? It is there very much because of potential profits which have never eventuated. More interesting news out of MS recently: the directive about staff being Obligated to use AI. Copilot doesn't even get answers about MS' own software consistently correct. It also told me Easter Sunday was on the 26th of April this year.

Does anyone like a draft officer except politicians? Even volunteers hate them for having a safe (well, mostly) cushy job and for the bribery. Also tend to disproportionately be mirrored Jain symbol/ pagan tattoo aficionados. Kind of funny seeing Ukraine say they expect Russia to bomb TCC offices more after doing so a couple of days ago got such a positive response among Ukrainians.

Dredge is a fine game made by a fine people. I have been playing Bioshock /2. Didn't really like either of them when I first played them but I have obviously mellowed in my expectations- System Shock 3, essentially- over time since I have enjoyed both. Still reckon Bioshock has the best art direction of any game I've played though its level design makes zero sense from a practical standpoint and while flawed if you spend too much time on them the stories are great. The gameplay is... there? Adequate? OK? Haven't been enthused, haven't got tired of it. I always wished stealth and care was a more realistic approach in them though. And of course for a Big Daddy Delta is as tough as a wet paper bag compared to the meatbag of the first game.

How can you blame countries for colonising places, deliberately favouring one ethnicity over another as a matter of policy, drawing up borders that force those two ethnicities that now hate each other together and insisting that those borders are Sacrosanct (except when we don't like them any more) and have to be respected? How can you blame them for bribing their leaders to make decisions against their nations' interests? Reminder, quite apart from the execrable Belgian colonial conduct in the Congo every single IMF/ WB loan to Zaire and policies demanded from them resulted in a worse position for Zaire and Zaireans. That didn't end with Mobutu and the country's name change either. The mess the DRC is in now has a direct line to western colonialism of the C21st variety. See also every single western intervention in the ME. At some point you have to accept that it isn't all good intentions going wrong when it goers wrong so very consistently; it's deliberate policy. I mean, getting money/ apologies out of Germany for genociding the Herero and Nama was like drawing blood from a stone and didn't address any of the ongoing grievances; it was more of a billion dollar bung to the ruling class to Just Shut Up. Then they acritically support Israel's genocide of the Palestinians and flagrant land grabs, showing how much they really hate colonialism. As for Starmer, that watermelon salesman, he deserves not just my shoe but everyone's. Enlightened Centrists are without exception embarrassments at best but he manages to take it all a step further than any other of those cringe artists. You just knew the UK would start abusing badly written anti terror laws- after all they've gone after noted radicals and rabble rousers, uh, Iceland with them before- it is after all their purpose. Blowing up tens of thousands of women and children and having an active policy of starvation plus ordering your troops to shoot indiscriminately is OK but painting some warplanes is terrorism. So is being mean to the IDF or Israel because of it. It'd be pathetic, if it wasn't a blueprint from 1984.

Iran's parliament voted for it. As noted in the article, that is not the end of the matter and it does not amount to kicking the IAEA out, yet. To illustrate, their parliament also voted to shut the Straits of Hormuz four days ago, which didn't happen.

Gotta get the last word missile in. Iran at least seems to have acknowledged the ceasefire announcement now. Whoever briefs Trump better leave out precisely how they phrased the acknowledgement though.

A ceasefire neither side seems to know about? Seems too good to be true. Thankfully it's from the same guy who brought peace to Ukraine after 24 hours, so we know he has credibility. "You know, HoonDing predicted all of this!" -- Bobby Baccalieri

The important question* really is whether Trump thinks the US achieved its goals. He's perfectly capable of 'convincing himself'- or being stupid enough to believe- that he can destroy Iran's nuclear program after they'd had 9 days of prior bombing and in this specific case that brand of... self confidence, shall we say, may actually be a good thing. While Iran now having a desire to make nukes is hardly a 'vibe' he has was notorious first term for acting on feelings and ignoring intelligence briefings. All his other big projects have been the same; just about everyone else says tariffs are dumb but he thinks they aren't etc. *well kind of, unfortunately, Israel doesn't really have any obvious reason to deescalate and without that Trump's unlikely to get the negotiations he really needs to proclaim victory. Which means Trump's, uh, Extraordinary Martial Endeavour will likely continue. Yeah, Qatar's the most pro Iran country in the region and they were aimed away from any of its own assets. Very little chance of any retaliation from the host. And not quite as loaded as attacking the US base in Bahrain, where the small sunni minority rules over the shia majority at the point of saudi (and US) bayonets.

While I can't believe I'm saying it that article is actually a bit unfair in two ways to Trump. Once Israel attacked circumstances did change, and you don't really need intelligence- in either sense- to know it. The Iranian weapons programme restarted nine days ago, and that isn't a 'vibe'; it's obviously the only way they are going to be able to deter attacks when conventional means have failed. It's the circumstances leading to that decision which are the important bit. It's also pretty obvious that the Israeli calculus from the start would have been that them starting it would have to result in the US finishing it for those reasons, and that they would be incapable of actually finishing it, and that there could be no negotiations once bombing had started. Resulting in an open ended war against their main rival by their biggest sponsor, entirely to their benefit. And we got here, ultimately, due to the collective policy of appeasing Israel at every step. That's not just Trump's fault, every single western and world leader who ran interference for Israel's ongoing genocide were effectively giving Israel the green light to do whatever they want. If you're okay with genocide- and they've amply demonstrated that they are- would anyone believe that you'd draw the line at bombing Iran? No, you would label it as 'defensive' aggression, precisely as happened.

Well, if you couldn't laugh at someone saying now is the time for peace- in all caps, so you know he's serious!- after starting a war you'd have to cry. Trust Trump to pick the absolute worst way of doing anything; even joining Israel immediately would have been better since at least they might have got the Iranian stockpiles then. As it is he's now abrogated JCPOA, bombed Iran and done so 2 days after giving a 2 week deadline. And that's leaving out assassinating Soleimani after saying you wanted to negotiate indirectly via Iraq- a clear cut case of Perfidy. You'd have to be an utter idiot to trust anything he says and the only safety Iran has from now on is exactly what the US and Israel don't want, ie nukes. Well you managed to prove I'm an idiot in one way at least. Should have followed Malcador and Lexx's example when you tried to start something with them and lol whatevered you from the start.

Hmm. Might want to get someone (not AI) to proofread your URLs, Newsweek. Yeah, they've certainly got the concept of a deal there. In this case not a facetious usage; it's an aspirational agreement written primarily to be signed by both parties. One gets their demands in writing, the other is free to ignore them, if it wants to. If the enforcement mechanisms for the previous agreements worked- and they included the first UN peacekeeping force allowed to take aggressive action- this agreement would be moot.

You brought back that ten year old argument, not me. If you agreed with me about Netanyahu's position, what was the point of doing that? That is a rhetorical question.

Poor analysis. Iran is text book Regional Power. A list of even their attempts to capital I Influence the wider world outside the ME is negligible compared to any genuine Great Power, even borderline ones like India. Their influence is strictly limited to and targeted at Shia muslims. They've also precisely hit multiple targets that we know about. Israel's biggest refinery. Their premier science park. The HQ of Microsoft. We don't know about military hits because of the Military Censor. Comparison to Saddam Hussein is ludicrous since he was 33 years ago now and far closer to Israel.

...such an easy search that your third link isn't even about an attack on a hospital, but on an aid site where the victims got taken to hospital? Ho hum. For the sake of argument I'll assume that they actually were all relevant articles though, the BBC certainly has done some coverage of it. So, how many of their articles had BBC reporters on the ground in Palestine? None? because Israel wouldn't let them there? You can't say your coverage isn't biased and it's because of Iranian censorship while Israel is open when Israel also censors stuff, when it makes them look bad. All he had to do is point out that fact instead of making the bias look even worse by using Israel as a positive example. If you want to do a useful search, try how many bombed hospitals or medical facilities the BBC visited in Lebanon, which wasn't under censorship.

Pretty sure accusing someone of using illegal drugs would get you a warning as well as accusing someone of lying. FTR, don't care, didn't complain, won't complain as your opinion is worthless. If my opinion was worthless to you, well, you wouldn't care either and certainly wouldn't write pages and pages. Was I wrong about you lying? Well, was Donald Rumsfeld lying when he said he knew where Iraq's WMDs were? You (presumably) still insist he wasn't. Please, please don't take that as an excuse to restart another multi year old argument, it's just an illustration of why you get no benefit of doubt on the matter. In any case, what the IAEA says now as opposed to, lol, 14 years ago via a think tank is that you cannot use their report(s) as a justification for attacking Iran, straight from their Director. If you prefer, there's a written report from a week ago. So, you can burble on irrelevantly about your 14 year old 2nd hand report in support of Bibi's 27 year old accusations as much as you like, it's still a 14 year old second hand report supporting 27 year old accusations. Though surely even you are getting sick of it now.

Interesting article from the BBC on why they only cover Israeli hospitals being bombed extensively and it isn't a double standard. All it actually does is give a very good indication of how bad the media coverage is and why BBC Persian is seen as a bit of a joke. Ah, it's all Iran's fault. There is literally no comment about all the Palestinian medical facilities that have been bombed and Israel has restricted access to because it's a bad look for them. That is particularly ironic because this is the final paragraph: Well yes, but not in the way you think. I'd also note that the BBC did not visit and give extensive coverage to all the medical facilities bombed, by Israel, in Lebanon either. Via WHO, and after one month of Israel's attack. There's a pattern there about who's hospitals have value and who's don't, and it isn't anything to do with Israel not practicing censorship.