Were the earlier series not focused on shared values to more or less a similar extent too?
Kirk has usually been given the reputation of being a rule-breaker, often ignoring Starfleet rules when they are in conflict with his values. Even off-camera (in DS9 I think) they attribute him 17 temporal violations, and I think he has been accused of violating the prime directive multiple times.
I don't think "the development" is what is claimed to be at stake here.
OP is not talking about the software, they're talking about the content. And the content model from Mastodon is not interchangeable with the one from Lemmy, Pixelfed, etc. they serve different purposes and have different models.
It's like saying that if most people use gmail for email you will switch from email to phone calls to avoid communicating with google's service. As if real time audio were the same thing as sending a message.
One thing you could argue is, instead of switching services, switching to an instance that does defederate if you dont want threads content. But that same argument can be said as well towards those wanting threads federation...
But dont think the point is what does the individual want (if that were the case, just use the option to block threads content for your user, without defederating), the point is what's best for the fediverse. I think people are afraid that something similar to what happened with "google talk" and their embrace of xmpp will repeat.
Personally, I think there's no reason to jump the gun this early... all of this post is based on a lot of weak assumptions. I dont believe that threads content would overwhelm the feeds, and if that were to happen then the software could be tweaked to prevent it.
Personally, while I appreciate when people add a "snippet of explanation", I do prefer that to be in the comments. Not as the main text of the submission.
Making it part of the submission can feel like editorializing. If I want to read the artice, I read the article, if I want to read opinions / interpretations of the article, I read the comments.
Using the "text snippet" for opinions or interpretations can cause bias... and it also might encourage people to repost the same content multiple times just so they can post with a different bias.
I think the comment section is a more organized and suitable place for that. It also allows people to use their votes to decide whether the comment on the submission deserves the upvote, separatelly from whether the link itself deserves promotion.
I think it's also safe to presume that in the ultra future tech advanced society of Star Trek, they can remove the bacteria that causes body odor in humans.
A lot of odor-causing bacteria are actually beneficial for us though. And what causes Vulcans to experience that "odor" might not be coming from bacteria to begin with.. for all we know it might be one of the thousand of compounds that leak into the air we exhale directly from our lungs.
Virtually every gas or volatile liquid is susceptible to cause odor. The only reason we interpret pure water as odorless/tasteless is because water is everywhere so our senses evolved in a way that it doesn't trigger a response. There are many other compounds we don't really perceive because we are used to them at the concentrations that exist in our breath.
If let's say an alien species is not used to having 78% Nitrogen in their atmosphere, and they happen to have receptors sensible enough, then being in a ship with breathable air similar to Earth might just make them puke in disgust after having a sniff of what we might consider "clean air".
I'd argue it'd make more sense for everyone to wear the equivalent of a high tech mask (or supressants?) rather than having to re-engineer the biology of the species every time they encounter an alien that might have a different set of compounds they might find unpleasant.
It's a low bar in the sense that a show can be misogynistic and yet pass the test.
But the show can also be a strong case for equality and fail it (ie. have both males and females involved in all conversations).
If a movie has only 2 characters, a man and a woman, and the movie is all about their relationship, then passing the Bechdel test will be a high bar for that movie.
The article mentions how many episodes in Voyager were very Janeway-centric, and yet didn't pass the test because in all the conversations there was one way or another one male involved, even though the focus was on Kathryn.
I feel that it's not a very good test in general. There are also shows/movies that don't pass the reverse Bechdel test (having 2 males talk about something not involving a female) and yet I wouldn't say those shows are sexist.
They could send the energy wirelessly in the form of light beams, then use special panels to transform those beams of light on Earth. Let's call them "solar panels".
It also depends about what specific topic we are talking about.
In many places in Europe, being a social democrat when it comes to economy (like Bernie) might be considered pretty moderate. But then certain attitudes about non-binary pronouns or supporting special considerations for specific groups of people, are seen closer to "far left".
You don't see the amount of virtue signaling in Europe that you see in USA media productions, for example.
