This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
- # announcements (17)
- # aws (12)
- # babashka (27)
- # beginners (85)
- # bristol-clojurians (1)
- # calva (16)
- # cider (3)
- # clara (7)
- # clojure (80)
- # clojure-europe (13)
- # clojure-italy (19)
- # clojure-nl (2)
- # clojure-norway (6)
- # clojure-poland (1)
- # clojure-spec (31)
- # clojure-uk (61)
- # clojurescript (29)
- # core-async (10)
- # cursive (7)
- # data-science (1)
- # datomic (29)
- # docker (3)
- # fulcro (120)
- # graphql (16)
- # hugsql (2)
- # leiningen (17)
- # luminus (2)
- # off-topic (36)
- # other-languages (3)
- # pathom (13)
- # re-frame (12)
- # ring (2)
- # rum (1)
- # shadow-cljs (126)
- # tools-deps (56)
- # vscode (5)
I've been cheering myself up by watching Joshua Oppenheimer's
The Look of Silence.
Missed it the first time around.
Is there a function in core that given two numbers, clamps the number to a value? i.e.,
(clamp 10 20) => 10,
(clamp 200 20) => 20?
cos I really enjoyed it up to the last three eps or so, where I thought they just sort of got a bit lazy
Not a fan of discovery S2. Bit marvel-esque in beating you over the head with CGI etc
It was okaaaaay, but I get the impression that I'm going to enjoy Picard a lot more 🙂
Discovery is easy evening-watch-don't-think-too-much-about-the-massive-loop-holes-relaxxxxx type of thing 🙂
Oh, how did I miss the Trek conversation. I personally thought Discovery was a train wreck, but then I only managed 3 episodes before I gave up. Maybe it gets better. Enjoyed Picard episode 1. When Stewart came out with all the, "we're going to take on Trump and Brexit...", stuff it took a few days before my eyes stopped rolling, especially after that ridiculous, "what have the Roman's done for us?!", skit he did, but so far we haven't be introduced to the "Trumponians", so I remain hopeful.
Not that I mind reference to these things, and I suppose we are getting some allegory to some modern issues with a major part of the story line. I think my fear was it was going to be way too "on the nose".
We talked a bit about this subject at lunch today, I tried going back to watch a few episodes of TNG
DS9 is the best Trek. I enjoyed Disco (S1 and S2 for different reasons) and liked the first ep of Picard. All Treks have some ropey bits.
@otfrom It hasn't done that. Not really. It never quite did the "star wars" thing of, "these guys are universally bad, and these guys are universally good... pew-pew with the laser gun!". They managed to find more subtly than that. There were TNG episodes that explored the benefits of terrorism. Even when they introduced the borg, they had an episode about the ethics of war and whether it was right to exploit a single individual even if it meant defeat of a deadly enemy. Good trek is, "philosophy in space".
...and "the interview" was the allegory I referred to in my first post, but it wasn't handled quite as abruptly as I feared. I'm actually kind of hoping that the writers have the stones to show the other side of that argument. I doubt that they will, but at it's best they would have. "So... by the way... star fleet is just evil now...", is lazy writing imo, but we'll see.
Star Trek has always had explicitly allegorical episodes from the original series onwards and has always had a political agenda. It is liberal (US style), mildly Christian, strongly atheist, generally anti racist and anti homophobic (though not always well or consistently thought through)
And it has always been preachy, even to the point of staging debates and strong speeches
The views on terrorism are the kind of views US liberals have about the IRA (they see them as analogous to the American War for Independence)
@otfrom There is a deleted scene in the very episode that I am thinking of where Data specifically mentions the, "Irish unification", so yeah, IRA definitely a factor. Political agendas are fine, but it was rare for trek to make the answers appear obvious. They would spend quite a long time exploring the consequences of even, "obviously ethically correct" solutions. I would just repeat that I think at it's best, trek would explore the "bad guy" in a sympathetic way. I hope they do it in the new Picard series too. I would like to see why the decisions made that lead to "the interview" were made. I would really like to see these arguments presented in a way that leaves me thinking, "they do kind of have a point there", because I think these kinds of stories were what made great trek great, but your mileage may vary.
Thinking of Dukat and Kai Winn - we understand why they do what they do, but it is clear that it is always still wrong. understanding them should help the viewers understand why they shouldn't do the bad thing.
The Roman lives/lives exchange in the interview is the example of that. It is pretty clear who is on the side of good there
I'm saying that it is a little too clear. Which was my initial concern. Unless they explore this in more detail (which they might), we just have to accept that "starfleet = bad now", since it is apparently "clear" that they are not on the side of good. Roddenberry was adamant that there should be no conflict between members of the crew so that the focus could be placed on the conflict of decisions and circumstance. For me, for Picard's decision to be meaningful, we have to encounter somebody of good moral conscious that saw the situation differently. It's going to be hard for the writers to do that, precisely because the story is a little bit "on the nose" with respect to current events, but if his decision was the "obvious" one, then it's hard to find it character defining or building in anyway. "A five year old would have known this was the right thing to do!", means doing it doesn't build any kind of respect right? Picard was such an iconic character because he always seemed to find the right solution in very complex and multi-dimensional problems with consequences, real or potential, to every choice.
If the route they are going to take this thing is making Picard a moral genius via the mechanism of simply writing everybody else to be moral idiots... I think I am going to lose interest really quickly, but it's early doors.
@otfrom sigh... yes. I know this. Unfortunately we increasingly live in an age where people cannot separate, "being political", from "being black and white". You can hold an opinion without considering people holding a different opinion as malicious or foolish. At least, you used to be able to. These days its more common to divide the world into, "people who agree with me" and "nazis". I actually agree quite strongly about Gene and controversial statements... my entire point is that I felt and feel that there is a very real risk that the new series will avoid making controversial statements. I enjoyed the controversy of trek at it's height.