FriendOfDeSoto

If it were faked, the Soviets would have had a field day. They didn't. If all the other facts didn't work, I find that most convincing. The nemesis had to accept it begrudgingly.

Between the 70s and today, the motivations for moon landings have changed. Back then: fuck the commies, we go first, and science. Turns out the moon isn't that interesting to continue sending people there. Rocks and dust, yawn. Not worth the ROI. The reason why there is renewed interest now is because people think realistically they can build a base on the moon. That was science fiction in 1969.

For your own mental health, give yourself a time frame and if they still think it's fake allow yourself to let it go. Chances are they don't want to be convinced and you have to let nature take its course and hope the seed of doubt you have planted comes to life and blossoms.

Well, he can skip the "shall I compare thee to a summer's day" one and they can just reuse his rendition from Ménage à Troi. I cannot believe he could top that performance.

I would replace patriotism with nationalism. There are patriots who stand up to oppose their own leaders when their conduct is unbecoming. Nationalists would sooner bite their tongue. The lack of introspection makes them react poorly to other nationalists elsewhere.

For keeping in touch with friends I'd suggest getting them onto Signal. Until a few weeks ago maybe also Discord but that ship has sailed down the gulf of age verification to the Bermuda triangle and rests alongside Telegram on the bottom of the sea now. You'll have more success getting people into Signal than onto the fediverse. Pixelfed DMs aren't encrypted so for keeping in touch with friends it maybe isn't the ideal platform either.

I only run a business account on Instagram. It's on an old phone that never had any Meta apps installed on it, runs on it's own WiFi via constant VPN under a fake identity. Describing this process as cumbersome is an understatement. But you could lurch like that for all the friends you cannot convince to move elsewhere and not give meta more real data.

I don't agree with that take. I'm quite happy the celebs are not on it. It's about appreciating nice pictures, the way Insta was in the beginning. I'm quite okay without the endless self-promotion packaged as insights into their lives #ad see link in bio crap.

The fediverse as a whole will grow slowly but steadily and one day in the future the trend will come to us. Whether it's run on Mastodon, by extension Pixelfed, Bluesky, or something new.

I also don't think that if, hypothetically, today Taylor Swift abandoned corporate social media and started posting on the Activity Pub branches, this would move the needle much. Yes, a bunch of people would sign up for accounts out of curiosity but they will just as quickly abandon those. Because most people are not used to or are willing to invest the time to craft their own timeline and thus grow bored. The bigger hurdle is ease of onboarding, not lack of a-listers.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounded like an "Orwell was so right" post to me. My mistake.

You are picking and choosing your predictions from 1984 though. The UK hasn't become airstrip one and ingsoc hasn't taken over. Newspeak is something we often bemoan when politicians speak but that's more of a critical shorthand than accusing them of actually talking in double plus ungood words. There is still a royal as the head of state and the capitalists hold the power. There is no room 101 in London (except for the TV show). We are more connected to the rest of the world and aware of the shit that's happening than in the 1940s.

Orwell may have been prescient in some areas but also wrong in others. It's a bit like Nostradamus. Add salt to both.

I would start by suggesting we look at fewer youtubers and their views on the subject. I'm tired of dumb facial expressions on thumbnails and exaggerated video titles that do not aim for calm, measured critique but to please the algorithm. And the algorithm likes controversy. So this linked video may be the outlier - I wouldn't know because I refuse to click through. These video links are more often than not efforts to increase views and thus nudge the video up in the ranking.

Is the death of the franchise nigh? Maybe. It wouldn't be its first. We have had deaths after TOS S3 and ENT S4/Nemesis. There was stuff in print or in games but nothing on screen until Star Wars became a success and the arrival of the binge streaming age/Star Wars again respectively. We may be on the verge of another lull. We are very dedicated fans of a franchise that needs to be bigger to be financially viable long term. But we are a big enough chunk of the market that executives will be tempted to bring it back.

Can Star Trek tell more stories? Sure it can. It depends on the writers. I was personally disappointed with the stories Disco and PIC told. They thought Star Trek storytelling needs to be Breaking Bad's mixed with Game of Thrones's and that equalled universe destroying threats that need to be fought every season. For SNW they learned that you can have a season long plot but you want to be more episodic. Academy is like that as well. There is a lot of fan service in them by design and references only a subset of viewers will catch. But I don't think that makes the shows less good or accessible to new audiences. And Marvel has established the easter-eggification of storytelling in modern franchises so a lot of viewers will want that.

Many scripts that became Star Trek stories were just sci-fi ideas that were then molded around the universe. There are still good sci-fi story ideas out there that can be told.

My fear is that we are at a ENT S3 point in time. It's a good season but not enough people are watching. Same with SNW or Academy. That's partially pissed off fans but also people not paying Paramount to watch it for reasons unrelated to the fandom. And the maneuvering around the Warner deal makes me fearful that all new projects will be shelved very soon for lack of funding and projected economic success. If the third lull is upon us, it's for economic reasons, not the lack of stories to be told.

Enjoy the soothing waves and the Iranian missiles overhead! You'll probably be safer in the water. Just saying.

Broad strokes explanations:

1. USA likes Israel, a lot for some reason

The US like many other countries support the existence of the Jewish state. That's a direct result of the Shoah. And then it got more complicated real fast. Wars, annexing the west bank, aggressive settlement and displacing the people who have lived there for ages, the Gaza wars, etc. - it makes it impossible to support it all.

2. "Israel" attacks Iran. This whole thing is being done with the USA's airplanes though.

No quotation marks necessary; this is a joint operation from everything I've read. The US has the biggest and most well equipped military force on this planet and does a lot of the heavy lifting.

Israel has a lot to fear from Iran. Iran has been a dick and has strong missile capabilities that they do not hesitate to launch at Israel, possibly overpowering their air defenses. Iran has funded and equipped lots of militias fighting Israel, like Hezbollah in Gaza.

Upon the mullah revolution, Iranians stormed the US embassy in Teheran, killed people and held another bunch hostage. The US became the #1 enemy of the Iranian regime. Between Israel and the US there is no love lost for the Iranian regime.

• What's the logic here? Not just the conspiracy.

There is continued unrest in the country; the majority of the Iranian people are fed up with their government. The timing is right in so many ways. A weakened Iran, leaders who dgaf about international law, the need for the US and Israeli leaders to score a win. Also, elections held while at war have a tendency to cement the incumbents in power.

But why now?

Israel's Netanyahu is under pressure for corruption and the war in Gaza. 47 is under pressure with failing approval ratings, Epstein, etc. A successful military operation can help both leaders improve their image for upcoming elections.

Why at all? Is Israel gaining something that I'm not seeing? Destabilization the main goal? What's the USA gaining here?

The world will be better without an Islamist authoritarian government in Iran. Israel and the US have already destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions last year. The regime is on the ropes with unrest in the country. Israel is getting more secure if the mullahs fall. Unless you are a lover of Islamist fundamentalism or a stern believer in international law, there is nobody who is rooting for these bastards to stay in power.

Iran is also an enemy of the Saudis, another close ally of the US. The calculus would be that a newly liberal Iran, maybe even democratized, would be a stabilizing factor in that region.

The biggest problem is that since Germany in 1945 no regime change has worked.

Broad strokes, all of this. The whole truth is more verbose and nuanced.

From my experience, no moderator enjoys the job. And the job is tougher than you think.

I would say an issue as complex as this deserves more than a three-sentence shower thought.