voidUpdate

"Japanese Japanese Industrial Standards standard keyboard"

"No true scotsman uses LLMs for a recompilation"

I hope my responses are a little more coherent than this...

- Someone with ADHD

I think the episode written by Malorie Blackman about some random time criminal appearing during MLK and Rosa Parks' protests would fall under "woke" too, but that was just a shit episode because of bad writing. A competent episode writer could probably have done something better with that time period/setting

That's why I'm asking you what your definition of woke is, so that I can understand what it is about new doctor who that you don't like

Could you please define what you think "woke" means then? Because I'm working off the definition of "being aware of and attentive to social and political injustices, especially regarding race, gender, and inequality"

Back when it was airing, I sort of lost interest around Capaldi. I think his episodes were a bit too "mature" for me, when I preferred funny scifi show. But I've come to appreciate a lot of his episodes more. But he did have some really dogshit ones, like the moon episode, The Caretaker (Where a school gets attacked by a dalek knockoff), and Sleep No More, which was so bad that me and my girlfriend spent the whole episode talking about other stuff when having a marathon rewatch. Both of us are big fans of doctor who in general

Doctor Who has been "woke" for a long time. I believe the 4th doctor discuss what pronouns to use for an alien. There have been several episodes essentially about slavery in the 10th and 11th doctors runs. Also you should read about The Happiness Patrol, a 7th doctor episode

Capaldi had strong episodes throughout his run, but yes, I personally did dislike some of the storylines. The Zygon stuff felt very weak to me, and I never understood the "The Hybrid" storyline. But heaven sent/hell bent were bangers, and I definitely enjoyed his finale Cybermen episodes.

But yes, the moon suddenly reappearing in between shots, perfectly fine and identical to before, was very silly

I'll be honest, I think Dr Who is due for a 1989-style shelving for a while. I've loved watching the show since I was young, but I think the quality has fallen off significantly recently. Capaldi was the last "great doctor" in my opinion. Whittaker is a good actress, I thought she performed well in Broadchurch (ironically also written by Chibnall), but her writing was just awful, and it feels like they've just spent the last couple of seasons nostalgia-baiting the fans, like with the Midnight episode

Wow, the intern must have tripped over a very big power cable this time

Is this using the rules from the official board game?

What extra would you want from the space review article that would constitute actual evidence for you?

What evidence would satisfy you that there are weapons in space? You either have to check yourself somehow, or trust a third party. Is there a third party you trust to provide evidence?

Some programmers have ethical concerns around the use of LLMs. It's like saying "my clothes still work, why should it matter if child labour made them?"

Russia was at least planning to launch a space-to-space laser back in 1987, but the prototype (essentially just a mass simulator, no lasers inside) failed on launch quite spectacularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)

Yes, but again that was a conventional weapon, and would have been fine under the treaty. I don't exactly condone it but it was also crap and never flew again. This video https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs goes into some of the reasons it was a particularly crap idea

There is the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which forbids placing "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner", but you can get around that by saying that it's just a conventional weapon, not nuclear or WMD. If it's for space to space combat, you could say that any weapon is potentially a WMD due to the Kessler potential, but if its space to ground, like an orbital missile platform or something, you are technically in the clear.

I'm guessing it doesn't ban weapons in space completely because of things like the survival guns on Soyuz (if they still fly them), used for defending yourself against wild animals in the event that you land in a forest or similar. "No weapons in space" would ban that as well, but I think it's reasonable to have a survival kit, just in case

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but usually when something says "hand drawn", I'd expect it to be hand drawn, not machine drawn

I googled for "cyphral distich" before:2026-08-30, and found barely anything that was relevant. Mostly incorrectly dated pages about this exact thing. In fact, the only instance I can really find is this website, which seems to be an archive of a magazine issue from 1927 https://toebes.com/Flynns/Flynns-19270813.htm (it also has a scan of the original text of the magazine in the top right). This facebook post https://www.facebook.com/groups/2600net/posts/46775529324677... seems to indicate it is found in at least one edition of the book

Nope, cert expired so I'm not allowed to view it XD It's alright, other comments say that it's because of protecting your privacy, which I guess I haven't done

Content not viewable in my region :P

When did that start for you? I've never seen that myself, I can keep scrolling as long as I want

2.5 to 3% according to google... Small but not tiny tiny

I've never understood the water argument... yes, it takes a lot of water in the initial setup to fill the water cooling loops, but isn't not constantly burning water, right? it gets cooled off again and goes around the loop

"Most things that people launch quietly stop existing", followed by "gone: 23%" doesnt feel right... Surely if it was "most", it would be over 50%?

According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, "The exact mechanism by which the blue light was generated was not known at the time the IAEA report of the incident was written, though it was thought to be either ionized air glow, fluorescence, or Cherenkov radiation associated with the absorption of moisture by the source; a similar blue light was observed in 1988 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States during the disencapsulation of a caesium-137 source"

I just checked it using one of the photos on that page. The final colours are not the same, but the contrast enhancing ability is comparable

If I buy a game, and my friend buys a game, we can both own a copy of the game, without owning the same copy. My disc of Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 is not the same as my friend's disc of Rollercoaster Tycoon 2