• 1 Post
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle


  • Yes-ish. The characters were villains, but the organization wasn’t necessarily. For instance, in Discovery season 2, Leland and his crew were the villains, but Section 31 was portrayed less as an extremist cabal and more as a misguided morally-grey organization. Less a blight upon the Federation and more an uncomfortable, but integral, part of it.

    @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world captures it well. Instead of being a cabal of extremists doing illegal and immoral things because they think they’re connected to a higher purpose, they’re a semi-official CIA-like organization.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that Section 31 isn’t supposed to be a cool or semi-legitimate organization (with ships, insignia, etc.) but rather shadowy and absolutely beyond the pale of legitimacy where very few can stomach what they do. From an artistic/thematic POV, Section 31 should be there to show us that a good society requires work to maintain and that its undoing can come from within by those claiming to protect it by eschewing that society’s values. In other words, the ends don’t justify the means.


  • It should be a conspiracy of like-minded individuals that exists parasitically within Starfleet, not an official (or an “unofficial official” agency).

    I agree. When 31 was first introduced, and Sloan explained that Section 31 was sanctioned by Starfleet under Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet Charter, the implication was that they were people who misinterpreted or construed a (probably minor) part of the Starfleet Charter and used it to justify damn near anything.

    Personally, I hate how Section 31 has been changed to be misunderstood, cool good guy/anti-hero types who are doing the wrong things for the right reason. DS9 had it right with portraying them as the villains within who should be snuffed out because the ends don’t justify the means.











  • Honestly, that 180 day window thing is nominal. The execution of all of that will take way longer with all of the litigation that would happen, and it’ll take a couple of years to get it all enacted (slow at first then accelerating as more gets enacted).

    Personally, I’d prefer if it were fast. The sudden change would wake people up, and cause way more civil unrest. If it’s slow, we end up as frogs slowly boiling. Fewer people will protest or cause issues if things unfold slowly. It’s the idea of the frog in the boiling water. If the changes are swift, there’s a higher chance of ordinary people taking notice and fighting to reverse them.





  • Les questions de support et de responsabilité peuvent également être un facteur : il peut y avoir une perception de risque plus élevé associé à l’utilisation de logiciels sans garantie ou soutien formel.

    Cette idée est la chose la plus importante pour beaucoup d’entreprises. Je l’ai vu quand j’ai demandé que je change mon ordinateur de travail pour Linux. Je suis vraiment plus confortable avec Linux, et je peux mieux travailler en utilisant Linux. Mais, le chef de mon départment m’a dit que « Sans soutien, Linux et les autres logiciels libres sont interdits. » Ils ne comprennent pas la technologie, alors ils en ont peur.