286437714's recent activity
-
Comment on Therapists are secretly using ChatGPT in ~health.mental
-
Comment on A ‘third way’ between buying or renting? Swiss co-ops say they’ve found it. in ~finance
286437714 LinkI think this was the housing solution proposed in Ministry of the Future that we read for Tildes book club? Or maybe it was just reflecting the way people in Zurich lived, I could be misremembering.I think this was the housing solution proposed in Ministry of the Future that we read for Tildes book club? Or maybe it was just reflecting the way people in Zurich lived, I could be misremembering.
-
Comment on TV Tuesdays Free Talk in ~tv
286437714 Link ParentYeah I agree. I really liked him in the S2 time travel paradox episode, and him and Scotty's plotline of being normal adults in a ship filled with children this week was the only thing keeping me...Yeah I agree. I really liked him in the S2 time travel paradox episode, and him and Scotty's plotline of being normal adults in a ship filled with children this week was the only thing keeping me from switching off.
I wonder if all the Discovery hangers-on are now on the SNW pre-production team now they don't have a show? That might explain all the extra sentiment, Marvel-like quip attempts, and workplace romances.
-
Comment on TV Tuesdays Free Talk in ~tv
286437714 Link ParentSeason 1 I thought was fine. Still a bit sentimental (un-earned emotion) and Discovery-esque, but they were episodic exploration episodes, with new characters who I gradually got to know. The main...Season 1 I thought was fine. Still a bit sentimental (un-earned emotion) and Discovery-esque, but they were episodic exploration episodes, with new characters who I gradually got to know. The main downside for me was the jokey tone - not in 'fun' episodes, but in serious situations. They mostly cleared this up by season 2.
Season 2 I thought was great. They put a lot of credit in the bank by tackling things like the ethics of genetic modification, how do two combattants interact after a major conflict, and a truly excellent Best of Both Worlds style cliffhanger. That meant they had credit to draw from when they did either a Trek staple (time travel episode) or something fun (Spock is accidentally human/the Lower Decks crew shows up/the musical), it felt like a little departure from watching competent adults in a crew solve problems using intelligence and grappling with ethical decision making.
Season 3 is just a mess. I'd say the main issue has been a drastic fall in quality in writing. A lot of the plot conceits, even in the better episodes, rely on characters being idiots, and these are characters that were previously established as competent starfleet officers. Add to that, more than half the episodes this season have been comedy episodes that leaned heavily into on-ship romance. I actually like a bit of interpersonal conflict in Star Trek, but this feels like a CW show.
When they serve up these comedy episodes that don't even make my face twitch, I remember Lower Decks, and how that managed to capture the ethos of Star Trek without being mean-spirited and having me still like and respect the crew I'm watching.
Strange New Worlds has lost that, with (so far):
-
an unsatisfying messy conclusion to the cliffhanger,
-
a Q episode that's about a love triangle,
-
a zombie episode where Starfleet's poster-boy captain breaks almost every rule whilst in command of his ship, putting his crew at risk for a personal romantic interest,
-
a meta 'ha ha we're Star Trek doing Star Trek' holodeck episode, like a really bad version of the in-universe send-ups that SG1 used to do,
-
an okay archaeological exploration episode that requires smart people doing dumb things (reaching out and touching artefacts, breaking Starfleet communications protocol on a hunch, etc),
-
an excellent episode about the pressures of command, the only really good episode of the season,
-
a truly, truly awful in-universe documentary episode, questioning whether Starfleet is coloniser or exploration force (great question!), which answers the question with 'it doesn't matter, the captain cooks for the the crew and they are all really nice!'
-
this week's awful episode, where four of the crew become Vulcans, instantly get Vulcan hairstyles and logic philosophy via hypospray (???), and become 2D cutouts of autistic assholes.
With such a small season run, you really need to invest a lot in order to take big stylistic risks or devote an entire episode to (attempts at) comedy. More than half of what's been released so far has been that, and with only one great episode, it's wildly unbalanced.
It feels to me like the creative team felt they had earned the right to do whatever they wanted within the show because of the positive responses to S1 and S2, without realising that that reception was due to internal consistency, interesting subject matter, and a really good balance between watching competent people tackle challenges and the occasional funny episode. They've seriously overdrawn their credibility and it's really killed my enthusiasm for what they're making.
-
-
Comment on TV Tuesdays Free Talk in ~tv
286437714 Link ParentAt this rate, I really hope not. I hope they just try and make next season good and let this story die a natural death.At this rate, I really hope not. I hope they just try and make next season good and let this story die a natural death.
-
Comment on TV Tuesdays Free Talk in ~tv
286437714 Link ParentI have no idea how the quality has dropped off so bad. The first two seasons were great. This season has half of the episodes as comedy or experimental episodes, and they haven't been funny or...I have no idea how the quality has dropped off so bad.
The first two seasons were great. This season has half of the episodes as comedy or experimental episodes, and they haven't been funny or landed.
I'm honestly baffled how they could mess it up so badly from one year to the next.
P-Squat, I was thinking about your comment during a therapy session I had this morning. Nothing major, just routine maintenance.
We're using a pretty structured format and the psychologist was describing something to me that didn't quite make sense. I asked if they had any slides or literature they could send through and they said 'hmm... not really, this is more theoretical and in text books.'
I hardly ever use LLMs, but when I put this term into one and asked for a lay-person's description, it did actually help. It really clarified for me what the psychologist was trying to convey.
Because this system of therapy is so widely used, it also gave me more confidence that the psych knew what they were doing, and increased my trust in our therapeutic relationship.
I kept thinking about your last point - the treatment plan was built using the brain of the educated specialist. If I had an experience with a mental health professional putting in my therapy goals or things I was struggling with, I would be extremely pissed.
Short anecdote, but I asked this LLM after to explain some very well-known (publicly available) military ground doctrine to me afterwards. It confidently asserted an incorrect definition with a wildly wrong example (and used football as a metaphor instead of war).
In the case of the therapy term, if I didn't know what to search for, it would have been useless. Being able to cross check it on Wikipedia gave me confidence.
In the case of the military doctrine test, I'm guessing it scraped some kind of LinkedIn post where someone who got out was trying to start a consultancy and dazzle clients with military terminology.
These things will almost certainly never get to a point where I will feel comfortable with anyone I depend on outsourcing their brain to them.