True, I was fresh off a showing and a little sour about it but in RE terms it ended pretty well.

Well, there’s always the holodeck.

Let me pitch you on this:

It’s a children birthday party on the Enterprise. Ten Forward is a bar and obviously out as a location so they go to the holodeck. A dozen or more children and their parents crammed into the Star Trek equivalent of Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza simulation.

And then the safety protocols fail.

Five Nights at Flotter’s.

That’s a cursed item. You’re describing a curse. You’re going to get your soul eaten.

Kansas

The one that gets me is ‘bud’ I had a roommate that would all ways say things like ‘yeah bud. that’s because ****’ when explaining anything and I had to put a firm stop to it. It was so patronizing.

imo, If you didn’t start the conflict you aren’t required to do or say anything. Fuck the aggressors and anyone that defends them. It’s a pretty simple rule.

That’s fair but also keep in mind that the most accurate statement is that it works for ‘the shareholders’ and over time ‘the shareholders’ have become less and less people and more and more entities that are holding the stock. Various Funds, Institutions, and other organizations. It’s a democratic council that is dictated by whoever holds the majority of voting shares. When we talk about millions of shares more often than not the voting majority is housed in one way or another within an institution. It’s not ‘A’ boomer, it’s a management fund holding the retirement portfolio of thousands of boomers if not just another company that managed to secure 15% or more of voting weight.

I push back because the focus should always be on the system and on the wealthy class. Not the demographic of some retired asshole that’s benefiting from the system itself.

TLDR: The CEO is the captain but the board is the admiralty.

The CEO is the face of the company. The board of directors is the what actually sets company policy and usually has the power to remove the CEO if they aren’t managing the company the way they want.

CEOs may agree with the board’s vision but if you want to know who’s pushing anti-human policy you should look first at the board. They choose the CEO and they can remove them with a vote.

There are many people that we don’t see in the news everyday that sit on multiple boards and direct policy across industries. When a firm or bank buys out a controlling interest in a company’s public stock they usually put someone on the company’s board. Why do you think a United CEO getting killed didn’t slow UHC down all that much? The CEO is a face, a captain, but the board are the admirals. CEOs aren’t without blame. They usually have freedom of implementation but they are always acting with oversight of some kind from the board.

It’s easy to point at the CEO because it’s one person, but really if you want to make any kind of lasting change you need to target the people who are sitting on multiple boards and pushing the anti-human policy.

The board of directors is also chosen by the shareholders and typically the entities with the most stock to vote aren’t people (or at least aren’t good people.) Think of anyone who could have the money to buy a controlling share of a major publicly traded company.

Circling back, The CEO is the company face, The board is the interface between the company and the rich unknowns. Usually those unknowns are other organizations that have controlling stock. It gets incestuous pretty fast.

Everyone looks at the CEO. People should be looking at the board of directors.

The only good part of season 3 was Seven’s arc. The rest was just the cost of getting to watch it.

It’s a fun movie. I actually found myself saying exactly what the protagonist was saying at certain points. He’s so perfectly just ‘Mr. Everyman’ and in over his head that you can’t help but laugh.

I think anyone that has played a RE game and spoken to their screen at certain moments will enjoy this movie. It’s a GOOD video game movie.

Didn’t like the ending.

‘Flockroaches’

over here in America, we had a friend in our group that outright refused to switch to signal. Not to make it seem like it’s the only factor, but that friend is no longer around, and we all use Signal.

yep. enjoy Europe, and good luck.

Be that as it may, I prefer to go by what a series shows us that a character can do rather than just assume some non-existent subtext. Other’s have mentioned that Sisko is half Prophet. At that point in the show we didn’t know that and at least on TV it was never demonstrated that being part Prophet gave Sisko anything other than some precognition (excluding his god-fight with Dukat). Saying that Sisko would have beaten Shran (A person who’s culture was highly militant and had ritual fights to the death), because he got away with punching Q once is just…bad theory.

I’m not saying Shran would wipe the floor with Sisko. I just think that speed wins out over strength. Sisko’s body is built for brawling. Granted he’s also a tactician, but so is Shran.

If nothing else it would be a good fight, but I’ve gone way to deep on this for a meme.

Sisko punched Q once, and Q was so entertained that he didn’t do anything about it. Don’t play.

It’s a funny joke, but lets me real. Shran would probably win that fight.

I watched so much scifi on Netflix back in the day. It was really an end of an era moment when they lost Star Trek and Stargate.

It’s not fully accurate to lay the blame at the feet of Netflix. At the time, they just saw the writing on the wall and did what they had to do to survive. Their catalog was massive because, early on, no one thought streaming would work. They had a massive collection of shows and movies that didn’t pull enough of an audience to air on TV for ad revenue. Netflix was able to get a TON of long-term deals that they used to grow, but when those contracts were coming due, the rights holders pulled out and started trying to make their own services. At that point, Netflix basically had to become a studio and pivot to original content, or else they wouldn’t have content at all.

The long and the short of it is that because Netflix was first, it got to set the stage for the golden age of streaming, but because it worked, it was inevitable that streaming would become cable.

It’s not Netflix’s fault. It’s just the course of the entertainment business. They suck now, but back then, I couldn’t think of a single bad thing to say about them… well, maybe that they got rid of the 5-star rating system. That system was definitely used to get metrics for their early programming.