This is just indicative of the much larger issue of how incredibly dangerous it is to allow servers to inject and run arbitrary code from third parties on your client machines. Third party ad-networks already do this, and if they're benign, they'll only TRACK you. If they're not, they'll do this, or try to hack your machine, or just about anything else they want to with all the power Javascript gives them - crypto-currency mining included.
Support indie gaming. The best titles I've played over the last 5 years have come from very small shops. They build decent games and are less likely to oull that crap.
I am an indie game developer - literally a one-man show. I decided to "go rogue" a few years ago, and I should be finished with my game in another year or so. No micro-transactions. No loot boxes. No DRM. No crap, as you say.
EA is only interested in games that can extract maximum micro-transactions from players, probably in the form of in-game loot boxes. Look for this trend over the next few years from all EA-owned studios. In other words, even a single-player game is going to require some sort of massive grind (declared "optional"), like the new Mordor game (different publisher, but same damned mindset), or will have some sort of multi-player tacked on which support micro-transactions. I'm no longer expecting great single-player RPGs from Bioware - my assumption is that they'll be filled with this sort of crap, and I hope I can stand by my principles and not purchase it.
Screw this. Screw them. I weep for my own industry and the reluctance of publishers to consider simply making great games that people want to play, and instead spend all their efforts figuring out how to milk "cows", players who spend hundreds or even *thousands* of dollars on worthless in-game crap, all at the expense of people like me who are willing to pay for a great, one-time game experience.
Snow tends to affect different regions in very different ways. For example, Seattle is an extremely hilly city. Combine that with the fact that snow is rather rare (meaning inexperienced drivers + no studded snow tires), and an inch or two of snow really is a big deal. Seattle also tends to be a moderate climate, which means that snow may fall, melt, and then re-freeze the next day when the temperature drops again, turning into black ice.
When I lived in the eastern part of the state, we'd get six or twelve inches of snow at a time (or even more), and it was really not a big deal, because it was cold, dry, and didn't stick much, the cities had enough plows, and most cars were wearing studded tires. It's sort of weird how, having lived in both areas, an inch of snow in one place can be much worse in some parts of the country than six inches in others.
Einstein's note, advocating "modest living", sells for an insane amount at an auction that only the uber-rich could possibly afford. The irony is palpable.
That seemed ridiculously pricey, so I looked it up. RFID tags currently cost between 7 and 15 cents. Typo?
RFID tags seem a bit like a solution in search of a problem. Bar codes are pretty much "good enough", as I haven't really experienced frustrations like you describe in stores I frequent. But I'd bet the real issue is that manufactures probably aren't terribly interested in losing 7-15 cents per unit when margins on low-cost items are already razor-thin, for the sole purpose of making things easier and cheaper for the retailers.
I think this is an area for future robotics development to really shine. It would be great if a robot could tirelessly weed around crops instead of relying on massive doses of chemicals and/or genetically-modified crops. Eventually, they might even help with pest control, like zapping harmful pests with a laser while helpful bugs (like bees, ladybugs, etc) are left alone.
Beyond the obvious challenge of getting such tech developed (you can already see some early prototypes and research), the trick is whether such devices can be effectively scaled up to the required industrial scale of modern farms, and reduced in cost enough for it to make financial sense to switch to such a technology. Modern farms already use a huge amount of very high-tech machinery, so I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually happened.
The entire point of using robots is because they're cheaper than humans in the long run. Human employees are essentially a indefinite rental cost, there's supplementary costs and risks involved, they can quit at any time, and they can only work eight hours a day. Robots are a fixed cost of ownership + smaller maintenance costs, which will presumably cost far less in the long run. They can work 24/7/365, minus maintenance or repair time. In pure economic terms, it's rather nonsensical to hire a human to do a job that a reasonably-priced robot can do.
If you think this isn't the trend of the future, you're in denial. But there's certainly a question of how our society adjusts to robots "supplementing" (in reality, replacing) a portion of a currently human workforce. Certain types of jobs are constantly being phased out due to technology or automation, and while disruptive in the short term, society has adjusted. But many people are worried about the *pace* of these new technologies being a disruptive force, or the notion of AI replacing more skilled workers.
I'm more of the opinion that it won't be catastrophically disruptive to society largely because it will also help lower costs of goods and services. Plus I believe people are over-estimating how fast the transition will occur. Some people tend to neglect to factor in the massive inertia of existing infrastructure. We'll have to see how it goes - but there's really no putting technology back in the bottle.
Also, just for the record, being in a union doesn't prevent a company from laying off workers by the thousands. My uncle worked for Boeing as a union machinist a few decades ago, and I recall stories about how Boeing would lay off large numbers of workers, which many suspected was mostly about boosting short term stock prices or price-earning ratios (which, completely co-incidentally, could make executives a lot in bonuses). Only they actually needed those workers to meet production demands, so a few months later, most of them would be quietly hired back.
I'm not sure if that's what's happening at Tesla, but it's hard to say when you're just looking in from the outside. The UAW isn't exactly a disinterested party without an agenda either. Unions are as much a business as anything else.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla can demonstrate that these were indeed poorly-performing employees via documentation, reviews, complaints, etc.
This is basically Google telling the world "Yes, I know exactly who you are, even without you explicitly telling me a thing about yourself."
Handy, sure, but just the fact that they can do this is a bit creepy. If you have to actually answer a Google CAPTCHA, congratulations, you're probably doing something right privacy-wise.
It would be sort of nice if people were able to view such things logically and dispassionately, but there are a lot of people who simply don't operate that way. The recently fired Google engineer who dared to challenge the current company group-think unfortunately found that out the hard way.
That being said, I don't think being a tiny bit sensitive to the feelings of some regularly marginalized groups of people is such a terrible thing. It's not like this is going to significantly weaken their product in any way. Very few people, with a few notable exceptions, talk smack about Dutch people, for example. I'm not offended by a phrase like "going dutch" (with the implication that dutch are cheap). But I'm not gay, nor a jew, so I'm not sure how they feel about such things.
The constant virtue signaling gets a bit old, sure. But I still think that's preferable to the other extreme. Hopefully, someday, we'll find an appropriate middle ground that's acceptable to all.
After reading the article (a dangerous pastime, I know), I think the summary is really focusing on the wrong aspects of this new algorithm. The innovation of this approach is NOT in its accuracy. Other algorithms have approached a 90% success rate, but required significantly larger data sets to train and were more brittle. For instance, minor adjustments in things like character spacing could throw it off, requiring re-training.
The critical part of this approach is its greater flexibility in solving different types of CAPTCHAs, and the reduced amount of training required in order to get it up to a reasonable level of accuracy.
Ah, well, then that's not *nearly* as interesting a story. It's a lot funnier if you talk about how you were horrified the next morning when you woke up with a pounding headache, lying next to a half-opened Kinect Star Wars case and thought "OMG. Did I... play that last night?"
In fairness, Google is marketing this API for a somewhat narrow purpose: Determining whether a customer left a *positive* or *negative* reaction to a customer's comment in your company support forums, for example, or attempting to determine customer reaction from support interactions.
This little fact is somewhat obfuscated in the summary, in which it seems to be billing it as a more general-purpose system that's making sweeping value judgements about society. Within this actual context, let's be honest, if you see those terms in your company's customer support forums, what do you think of the likelihood is of them being part of positive or negative comments? Yeah, exactly.
The big mistake that Google made is not putting a politically correct filter on their API to make sure controversial words had a neutral value, even if that wasn't really the case. Otherwise, you generate flamebait headlines like we see here, wherein highly limited "AI" algorithms simply regurgitates the training material it was fed without any deep or sophisticated understanding.
Same thing for the United Airlines app. It demands "camera". Why? So you can get pictures of me being dragged off the airplane without me knowing about it?
If I had to guess: for taking snaps of QR codes of tickets or boarding passes displayed on a kiosk or home computer.
Do you know what I've love to see? When developer submit apps to the store, they are also required to submit a single line for each requested permission which explains WHY they are requesting that permission. What feature requires this? The user could then just tap on a permission to see what it's being used for, and decide whether or not it's a feature they care about.
At the very least, you could at least force app developer to attempt to justify themselves. A lack of a good explanation would be tantamount to either sloppy programming or malicious intent.
Copious amounts of alcohol at a party makes many things of dubious quality seem more funny/sexy/insightful/awesome than when you face them in the harsh light of sobriety the next morning.
So how is something like Kubuntu (an Ubuntu distro with KDE instead of Unity or Gnome) any different from Windows 8 with Classic Shell? Or are you saying distros like Kubuntu are just pointless?
I wouldn't call it pointless, but my belief is that every variation you introduce to a complex system increases the chances of some odd interaction leading to bugs or instability, so there's a tradeoff to be made there.
One of the difficulties of developing for Linux is the ridiculous number of distros to test for. In practice, what this means is that more "alternative" distros like Kubuntu may simply get little to no QA time at all. So it's more of a "hope this works for you - run at your own risk" sort of scenario. That's probably fine for advanced users who are savvy enough to switch distros or desktops if needed, but I'm not sure that's great advice for all users.
I'd certainly give Discovery a shot, but I'm not interested enough to subscribe to a streaming service for that single show. As soon as it's available within my regular services (meaning Netflix or Amazon Prime), I'll give it a watch. Who knows when or if that happens, though.
I honestly believe Enterprise could have been a hit if the producers or writers hadn't insisted on wasting time with aliens we never heard of and cared nothing about, the temporal cold war, and so on. It's as if they seemed insistent on keeping the show away from so many of the most interesting possibilities of exploring the early Star Trek universe. I also wasn't a fan of how it played to the lowest common denominator in other ways, of course. And ugh... that opening music. I always loved Star Trek's sweeping symphonic scores, but that... it felt like the producers were pandering to a new audience demographic, and just pissing on the original fans. I went into that show really wanting to like it, and just felt completely disappointed.
Generally speaking, as a software developer (I'm currently working on a cross-platform game), I try to leave my development systems as close to stock as possible on the platforms my customers are likely to be using. That means I use Windows 10, macOS 10.12 (Sierra), and Ubuntu (16.04 LTS) w/ the default Unity desktop. I'll probably create a new Unity partition for 17.xx soon, and I'll certainly be leaving it with the stock desktop. This gives me the greatest chance of reproducing application bugs on these systems, and it also helps keep my development machines as stable as possible.
Whenever Windows 8 apologists said something like "stop complaining, you can just install xxx plugin to get your start menu back", they were completely missing the point. You shouldn't HAVE to customize your OS to get it to a practical, working state. Moreso, my experience is that every sort of major modification you make to your system simply increases the likelihood of introducing stability issues, causing strange application bugs, and all other sorts of headaches. Now, each time you ask for advice from someone, you have to explain "I'm not running the default environment", and the likelihood of getting problems resolved decreases.
So, complaints about a default desktop environment aren't necessarily lazy or trolling, even if there are workarounds. There really shouldn't be any excuse for a user to experience a sub-optimal desktop environment these days, especially in one of the world's most popular Linux distros.
Yep, absolutely agree, although I can't comment on Lorca, not having seen ST:D yet.
It's interesting characterization, and probably a lot more honest about human nature than Roddenbery's vision of Star Trek, showing the conflict between high minded ideas and the reality of a total war. But again, it's really more a matter of whether one is interested in watching that sort of conflict as a Star Trek show, instead of the more high-minded TNG episodic formula.
I think for many people, the draw of Star Trek is not simply a fascination of the stories and technologies, but the idealized potential of what humanity could aspire to: an end to war, poverty, and basic wants on Earth, with a drive towards the betterment of self, rather than chasing material wealth. We can turn on ANY show and witness the ugly side of human nature. Star Trek was actually pretty unique in that manner. If you take that aspect away, in my opinion, it just becomes another sci-fi series.
It was not Roddenberry's Star Trek, certainly. It lacked the sense of exploration and discovery, and it was a darker, grittier Star Trek universe, rather than the more optimistic, upbeat TNG. I think a lot of people liked DS9 for those latter points, while many Star Trek fans like myself and my parents didn't care much for it for exactly those same reasons.
Speaking in hindsight (I watched it later), I think DS9 was a pretty good show, especially in the latter seasons. I just don't consider it to be a great Star Trek, if that makes sense. It's sort of similar to how I think the JJ Abrams remakes are pretty good shows, objectively speaking, but feel a lot more like Star Wars than Star Trek to me.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just indicative of the much larger issue of how incredibly dangerous it is to allow servers to inject and run arbitrary code from third parties on your client machines. Third party ad-networks already do this, and if they're benign, they'll only TRACK you. If they're not, they'll do this, or try to hack your machine, or just about anything else they want to with all the power Javascript gives them - crypto-currency mining included.
Support indie gaming. The best titles I've played over the last 5 years have come from very small shops. They build decent games and are less likely to oull that crap.
I am an indie game developer - literally a one-man show. I decided to "go rogue" a few years ago, and I should be finished with my game in another year or so. No micro-transactions. No loot boxes. No DRM. No crap, as you say.
EA is only interested in games that can extract maximum micro-transactions from players, probably in the form of in-game loot boxes. Look for this trend over the next few years from all EA-owned studios. In other words, even a single-player game is going to require some sort of massive grind (declared "optional"), like the new Mordor game (different publisher, but same damned mindset), or will have some sort of multi-player tacked on which support micro-transactions. I'm no longer expecting great single-player RPGs from Bioware - my assumption is that they'll be filled with this sort of crap, and I hope I can stand by my principles and not purchase it.
Screw this. Screw them. I weep for my own industry and the reluctance of publishers to consider simply making great games that people want to play, and instead spend all their efforts figuring out how to milk "cows", players who spend hundreds or even *thousands* of dollars on worthless in-game crap, all at the expense of people like me who are willing to pay for a great, one-time game experience.
Your definition of âoemodestâ .
I couldn't find a definition for "âoemodestâ" in any dictionary. Is that perhaps a foreign word?
Snow tends to affect different regions in very different ways. For example, Seattle is an extremely hilly city. Combine that with the fact that snow is rather rare (meaning inexperienced drivers + no studded snow tires), and an inch or two of snow really is a big deal. Seattle also tends to be a moderate climate, which means that snow may fall, melt, and then re-freeze the next day when the temperature drops again, turning into black ice.
When I lived in the eastern part of the state, we'd get six or twelve inches of snow at a time (or even more), and it was really not a big deal, because it was cold, dry, and didn't stick much, the cities had enough plows, and most cars were wearing studded tires. It's sort of weird how, having lived in both areas, an inch of snow in one place can be much worse in some parts of the country than six inches in others.
Einstein's note, advocating "modest living", sells for an insane amount at an auction that only the uber-rich could possibly afford. The irony is palpable.
They are about $5 for each digital tag now.
That seemed ridiculously pricey, so I looked it up. RFID tags currently cost between 7 and 15 cents. Typo?
RFID tags seem a bit like a solution in search of a problem. Bar codes are pretty much "good enough", as I haven't really experienced frustrations like you describe in stores I frequent. But I'd bet the real issue is that manufactures probably aren't terribly interested in losing 7-15 cents per unit when margins on low-cost items are already razor-thin, for the sole purpose of making things easier and cheaper for the retailers.
I think this is an area for future robotics development to really shine. It would be great if a robot could tirelessly weed around crops instead of relying on massive doses of chemicals and/or genetically-modified crops. Eventually, they might even help with pest control, like zapping harmful pests with a laser while helpful bugs (like bees, ladybugs, etc) are left alone.
Beyond the obvious challenge of getting such tech developed (you can already see some early prototypes and research), the trick is whether such devices can be effectively scaled up to the required industrial scale of modern farms, and reduced in cost enough for it to make financial sense to switch to such a technology. Modern farms already use a huge amount of very high-tech machinery, so I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually happened.
The entire point of using robots is because they're cheaper than humans in the long run. Human employees are essentially a indefinite rental cost, there's supplementary costs and risks involved, they can quit at any time, and they can only work eight hours a day. Robots are a fixed cost of ownership + smaller maintenance costs, which will presumably cost far less in the long run. They can work 24/7/365, minus maintenance or repair time. In pure economic terms, it's rather nonsensical to hire a human to do a job that a reasonably-priced robot can do.
If you think this isn't the trend of the future, you're in denial. But there's certainly a question of how our society adjusts to robots "supplementing" (in reality, replacing) a portion of a currently human workforce. Certain types of jobs are constantly being phased out due to technology or automation, and while disruptive in the short term, society has adjusted. But many people are worried about the *pace* of these new technologies being a disruptive force, or the notion of AI replacing more skilled workers.
I'm more of the opinion that it won't be catastrophically disruptive to society largely because it will also help lower costs of goods and services. Plus I believe people are over-estimating how fast the transition will occur. Some people tend to neglect to factor in the massive inertia of existing infrastructure. We'll have to see how it goes - but there's really no putting technology back in the bottle.
Also, just for the record, being in a union doesn't prevent a company from laying off workers by the thousands. My uncle worked for Boeing as a union machinist a few decades ago, and I recall stories about how Boeing would lay off large numbers of workers, which many suspected was mostly about boosting short term stock prices or price-earning ratios (which, completely co-incidentally, could make executives a lot in bonuses). Only they actually needed those workers to meet production demands, so a few months later, most of them would be quietly hired back.
I'm not sure if that's what's happening at Tesla, but it's hard to say when you're just looking in from the outside. The UAW isn't exactly a disinterested party without an agenda either. Unions are as much a business as anything else.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla can demonstrate that these were indeed poorly-performing employees via documentation, reviews, complaints, etc.
This is basically Google telling the world "Yes, I know exactly who you are, even without you explicitly telling me a thing about yourself."
Handy, sure, but just the fact that they can do this is a bit creepy. If you have to actually answer a Google CAPTCHA, congratulations, you're probably doing something right privacy-wise.
It would be sort of nice if people were able to view such things logically and dispassionately, but there are a lot of people who simply don't operate that way. The recently fired Google engineer who dared to challenge the current company group-think unfortunately found that out the hard way.
That being said, I don't think being a tiny bit sensitive to the feelings of some regularly marginalized groups of people is such a terrible thing. It's not like this is going to significantly weaken their product in any way. Very few people, with a few notable exceptions, talk smack about Dutch people, for example. I'm not offended by a phrase like "going dutch" (with the implication that dutch are cheap). But I'm not gay, nor a jew, so I'm not sure how they feel about such things.
The constant virtue signaling gets a bit old, sure. But I still think that's preferable to the other extreme. Hopefully, someday, we'll find an appropriate middle ground that's acceptable to all.
After reading the article (a dangerous pastime, I know), I think the summary is really focusing on the wrong aspects of this new algorithm. The innovation of this approach is NOT in its accuracy. Other algorithms have approached a 90% success rate, but required significantly larger data sets to train and were more brittle. For instance, minor adjustments in things like character spacing could throw it off, requiring re-training.
The critical part of this approach is its greater flexibility in solving different types of CAPTCHAs, and the reduced amount of training required in order to get it up to a reasonable level of accuracy.
Ah, well, then that's not *nearly* as interesting a story. It's a lot funnier if you talk about how you were horrified the next morning when you woke up with a pounding headache, lying next to a half-opened Kinect Star Wars case and thought "OMG. Did I... play that last night?"
In fairness, Google is marketing this API for a somewhat narrow purpose: Determining whether a customer left a *positive* or *negative* reaction to a customer's comment in your company support forums, for example, or attempting to determine customer reaction from support interactions.
This little fact is somewhat obfuscated in the summary, in which it seems to be billing it as a more general-purpose system that's making sweeping value judgements about society. Within this actual context, let's be honest, if you see those terms in your company's customer support forums, what do you think of the likelihood is of them being part of positive or negative comments? Yeah, exactly.
The big mistake that Google made is not putting a politically correct filter on their API to make sure controversial words had a neutral value, even if that wasn't really the case. Otherwise, you generate flamebait headlines like we see here, wherein highly limited "AI" algorithms simply regurgitates the training material it was fed without any deep or sophisticated understanding.
Same thing for the United Airlines app. It demands "camera". Why? So you can get pictures of me being dragged off the airplane without me knowing about it?
If I had to guess: for taking snaps of QR codes of tickets or boarding passes displayed on a kiosk or home computer.
Do you know what I've love to see? When developer submit apps to the store, they are also required to submit a single line for each requested permission which explains WHY they are requesting that permission. What feature requires this? The user could then just tap on a permission to see what it's being used for, and decide whether or not it's a feature they care about.
At the very least, you could at least force app developer to attempt to justify themselves. A lack of a good explanation would be tantamount to either sloppy programming or malicious intent.
Copious amounts of alcohol at a party makes many things of dubious quality seem more funny/sexy/insightful/awesome than when you face them in the harsh light of sobriety the next morning.
Start by searching for something called "East India Company."
Which had a government granted monopoly.
So how is something like Kubuntu (an Ubuntu distro with KDE instead of Unity or Gnome) any different from Windows 8 with Classic Shell? Or are you saying distros like Kubuntu are just pointless?
I wouldn't call it pointless, but my belief is that every variation you introduce to a complex system increases the chances of some odd interaction leading to bugs or instability, so there's a tradeoff to be made there.
One of the difficulties of developing for Linux is the ridiculous number of distros to test for. In practice, what this means is that more "alternative" distros like Kubuntu may simply get little to no QA time at all. So it's more of a "hope this works for you - run at your own risk" sort of scenario. That's probably fine for advanced users who are savvy enough to switch distros or desktops if needed, but I'm not sure that's great advice for all users.
I'd certainly give Discovery a shot, but I'm not interested enough to subscribe to a streaming service for that single show. As soon as it's available within my regular services (meaning Netflix or Amazon Prime), I'll give it a watch. Who knows when or if that happens, though.
I honestly believe Enterprise could have been a hit if the producers or writers hadn't insisted on wasting time with aliens we never heard of and cared nothing about, the temporal cold war, and so on. It's as if they seemed insistent on keeping the show away from so many of the most interesting possibilities of exploring the early Star Trek universe. I also wasn't a fan of how it played to the lowest common denominator in other ways, of course. And ugh... that opening music. I always loved Star Trek's sweeping symphonic scores, but that... it felt like the producers were pandering to a new audience demographic, and just pissing on the original fans. I went into that show really wanting to like it, and just felt completely disappointed.
Whoops. That should read: "I'll probably create a new Ubuntu partition for 17.xx soon..."
Generally speaking, as a software developer (I'm currently working on a cross-platform game), I try to leave my development systems as close to stock as possible on the platforms my customers are likely to be using. That means I use Windows 10, macOS 10.12 (Sierra), and Ubuntu (16.04 LTS) w/ the default Unity desktop. I'll probably create a new Unity partition for 17.xx soon, and I'll certainly be leaving it with the stock desktop. This gives me the greatest chance of reproducing application bugs on these systems, and it also helps keep my development machines as stable as possible.
Whenever Windows 8 apologists said something like "stop complaining, you can just install xxx plugin to get your start menu back", they were completely missing the point. You shouldn't HAVE to customize your OS to get it to a practical, working state. Moreso, my experience is that every sort of major modification you make to your system simply increases the likelihood of introducing stability issues, causing strange application bugs, and all other sorts of headaches. Now, each time you ask for advice from someone, you have to explain "I'm not running the default environment", and the likelihood of getting problems resolved decreases.
So, complaints about a default desktop environment aren't necessarily lazy or trolling, even if there are workarounds. There really shouldn't be any excuse for a user to experience a sub-optimal desktop environment these days, especially in one of the world's most popular Linux distros.
Yep, absolutely agree, although I can't comment on Lorca, not having seen ST:D yet.
It's interesting characterization, and probably a lot more honest about human nature than Roddenbery's vision of Star Trek, showing the conflict between high minded ideas and the reality of a total war. But again, it's really more a matter of whether one is interested in watching that sort of conflict as a Star Trek show, instead of the more high-minded TNG episodic formula.
I think for many people, the draw of Star Trek is not simply a fascination of the stories and technologies, but the idealized potential of what humanity could aspire to: an end to war, poverty, and basic wants on Earth, with a drive towards the betterment of self, rather than chasing material wealth. We can turn on ANY show and witness the ugly side of human nature. Star Trek was actually pretty unique in that manner. If you take that aspect away, in my opinion, it just becomes another sci-fi series.
Small-scale office space for rent with shared facilities, dressed up in buzzword bingo terms.
Was DS9 also not Star Trek?
It was not Roddenberry's Star Trek, certainly. It lacked the sense of exploration and discovery, and it was a darker, grittier Star Trek universe, rather than the more optimistic, upbeat TNG. I think a lot of people liked DS9 for those latter points, while many Star Trek fans like myself and my parents didn't care much for it for exactly those same reasons.
Speaking in hindsight (I watched it later), I think DS9 was a pretty good show, especially in the latter seasons. I just don't consider it to be a great Star Trek, if that makes sense. It's sort of similar to how I think the JJ Abrams remakes are pretty good shows, objectively speaking, but feel a lot more like Star Wars than Star Trek to me.