ValueSubtracted

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
 

3x01 "Hegemony, Part II"

3x02 "Wedding Bell Blues"

3x03 "Shuttle to Kenfori"

3x04 "A Space Adventure Hour"

3x05 "Through the Lens of Time"

3x06 "The Sehlat Who Ate Its Tail"

3x07 "What Is Starfleet?"

3x08 "Four-and-a-Half Vulcans"

3x09 "Terrarium"

3x10 "New Life and New Civilizations"

The third season of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds returns this summer on Thursday, July 17, premiering with two episodes, exclusively on Paramount+ in the U.S.

The series will also stream on Paramount+ in international markets where the service is available. Following the premiere, new episodes will drop weekly on Thursdays, with the season finale on Thursday, September 11.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds streams exclusively on Paramount+ in the U.S., the U.K., Latin America, Australia, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Japan. The series is also available on Paramount+ in Canada. It streams on SkyShowtime in the Nordics, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Central and Eastern Europe. The series is distributed by Paramount Global Content Distribution.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay, if you need it spelled out for you, I didn't say organized crime never involves abuse of the immigration system, postal service, or online service providers. I said the bill reaches well beyond that goal (if indeed that is the goal, which is questionable to say the least).

Go construct your straw men some place else.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

all of which reach way beyond organized crime.

C'mon, don't insult us both by pretending you can't read.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 8 points 2 days ago (8 children)

So you started with "there's no reason to appease the US," and have now landed on, "they say they're trying to appease the US by giving them things they want, but they don't really mean it"?

And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples' mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unless you're trying to tell me those things aren't in the bill (they are), you haven't said anything at all.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If you're going to reply to me, you could at least make an effort to reference a single thing that I said.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago (10 children)

How do the things in this bill accomplish that?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 10 points 2 days ago (14 children)

There’s no reason for us to come up with “draconian” bills to appease to Taco Chicken.

Maybe you should tell the Public Safety Minister.

Anandasangaree said Tuesday that Bill C-2 was drafted to contain "elements that will strengthen the relationship" between Canada and the U.S.

"There are a number of items in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S. so we are addressing some of those issues," he said. "But it's not exclusively about the United States."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-legislation-border-fentanyl-1.7550684

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 18 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Of the points raised in the video, which do you think aren't harmful?

Unilaterally cancelling immigration applications without any real oversight is draconian.

The video lays out a very concrete example of why the one-year limit on asylum claims is not a great idea.

I would think that eliminating "barriers" to forcing electronic service providers to hand over user data to law enforcement should be relevant to the interests of most Lemmy users.

Making it easier for the police to seize and open mail is...concerning.

 

This community was founded early in season one, around the time that "Boom" was released. After the season ended, we went back and did some "Retrospective Discussions" to cover the first couple of episodes of the season, plus the Tennant/Tate specials.

The main conceit of them being "retrospective" is that we're free to discuss things in hindsight, pulling in context from later seasons as desired.

After that initial run, I put them on hiatus, as engagement was understandably lower than with new episodes. But...we're looking at a potentially lengthy break between new episodes, so maybe it's worth looking at the idea again.

I think "Rose" would be a logical place to start, for ahem multiple reasons.

What do we think? If the interest is there, we could start on the weekend.

”Pew, pew, pew, pew, pew.” The middle of the battle against the Rev-1 seems like an odd time for Murf to imitate someone complaining about “Star Trek: Discovery”, but he does seem to have things handled.

I couldn't understand him because he was whispering, and I couldn't see him because it was too dark, and also he was too woke. Is that a Bingo?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

outside Canada they need to be better promoted as Canadian.

Interesting - what do you see as the benefit to that? I'm not disagreeing, but I hadn't really considered it before.

One thing that needs to happen is the Conservative traitors to stop lying about and maligning the CBC.

Big yup.

I'm glad you enjoyed it - it's a new podcast to me, but I'm assuming they're going to save the Bombers-centric content for their other podcast, which is more Winnipeg-centric.

I'm super jealous that you're going to the big game...unless it's ridiculously cold, in which case...courage.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I'm glad the regular season is here.

I'm less than pumped that the Bombers are on the bye.

view more: ‹ prev next ›