- 32 Posts
- 9.8K Comments
1·20 hours ago… It does
Oh, just any technobabble ever is enough to make something hard scifi and reasonable to you? I don’t think you’ve ever used reason, then. Which is sort of the issue here.
You can’t reason why the contradictions aren’t contradictions, you just stomp your foot “no no no I’m right and I don’t have to reason in it any way”
I’m guessing you consider Rick & Morty intellectual hard scifi as well, with those criteria.
Yeah true screenshot not a photo.
Anyway, it’s very clearly stated in it that it’s real food that he’s providing, with a strong implication that otherwise it’d be holographic.
But I think most of what you have is pure conjecture.
You know, because the holodecks are about as scientific as the TARDIS.
Which you just refuse to admit, despite the various contradictions one can just rattle a list of.
Then there are burgers and sandwiches, where bits of raw onion get hidden in the middle, only to be discovered after a horrifying crunch with a stinging on my tongue.
I enjoy that. I was gonna say raw onion slices go hard in a burger. But I get what you’re about, as there was a kebab place in my city decades ago which put fkin whole cloves of garlic in the roll, not crushed or anything. And that was too much for me. Crunch in them and get all the bitterness eww. Maybe they had been pickled a bit idk but mostly raw. But I’m clearly not as sensitive. I enjoy the crunch in a burger like you say, although I think it maybe contribute to the taste as well.
I remember a study saying roughly 50 000 eur or 70 000 dollars annually and after that the increase of happiness with money is negligible. But that was like 15 years ago at least so I’m thinking it’s more like 80k eur and 120k USD or smth at the moment at least.
But yeah after that what’s to worry about
I don’t think you understand what our senses are capable of.
You’re literally just handwaving all the issues. Which is completely fine, as long as you stop pretending there’s some actually reasonable science behind this fantasy-machine.
The only limitations it has is the writer’s imagination and the budget of the show. That’s all. It’s soft scifi.
None of your explanations have even remotely explained anything. But you’re refusing to accept they are actually handwavy soft scifi, which they very much are.
Saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” doesn’t make it rational that a group of people in a limited size room could think they’re all in very different places in massive village for instance. That I could play tennis with you in the same village while there’s a whole dancing competition going on in the same village but 3km away, with competitors and real people in thw audience.
If you don’t realise that 16 people in a small room the size of a couple of buses couldn’t do that unless they’re being essentially completely neurologically manipulated and just still instead of actually being on a tennis court, then I can accept it. It’s completely just fooling your brain and not actually doing any of the things. That’s acceptable. Pretending that saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” is a good explanation for any of that is beyond ridiculous.
It’s a soft scifi fantasy machine. Maybe you’re just allergic to even thinking you might be watching fantasy instead of scifi and that just irks you doesn’t it.
But honestly, Outlander is harder scifi than this. And it’s not especially technological. (It still is marked as scifi though or was at least)
I provided you with an actual photograph with a quote that’s clearly showing that holographic food isn’t real, as otherwise Quark wouldn’t need to offer the person real food.
You’re just saying “trust me bro, it’s definitely real food”
Sure, TNG has like water leaving the holodeck as wet people can walk out. But Voyager contradicts those notions.
Tldr;
I just don’t see a way this could work.
Like I’ve said, the holo-tech is just beyond inconsistent and should not be anyones idea of “hard” scifi. The explanations contradict each other from one episode to the next and especially from one show to the next. It’s soft scifi and I’m completely fine with that. Are you?
pretty much halfway towards what holodeck does already.
Yeah, a bad copy that’s not affecting all of your senses as has lots of limitations?
VR is fun but it’s nowhere near fooling the senses properly. Proprioception, acceleration.
You refuse to answer questions which I say can’t be answered while still not agreeing with me that it’s goddamn ludicrous to even suggest the holotech has anything to do with hard scifi.
It’s a pure fantasy machine only limited by the writer’s imagination, nothing else.
Yeah it’s called a suite because it’s not a deck of any sort on a ship.
I’m still going to ask where you’re getting “all the food is real” from?
Nor do I think them necessarily not being federation holotech, which I also don’t know where you’re getting that, but since DS9 was under Cardassian rule and whatnot it’s not entirely unbelievable.
No, you didn’t. True enough.
You also didn’t answer my question.
I’m in therapy and I’d still like a month away on a remotely uninhabited island.
No, but on a remote uninhabited island you can pretend the bullshit doesn’t exist.
It’s incredibly hard to delude yourself when something is in front of yourself face. Although this is apparently a flaw in me, as most people seem perfectly capable of it.
When you create a bar or a restaurant on the holodeck, all the food and drink there is real.
Idk where you even got this idea but here, from DS9, which would seem to contradict that.
S3e8 “Meridian”
So I shouldn’t waste time arguing you?
People who palter often believe it is less unethical than outright lying
God I hate those people (no wonder the example used is a used car salesman)
Yeah this. It’s reasonable if the companies are and the system is.
But for instance Ryde scooters in my city had most of their brakes set pretty friggin tight, so that pretty much any application of the rear bake lead to skidding.
I know kids do it on purpose, and I did enjoy skidding a corner or two, but tried doing it minimally. Couldn’t help myself though, especially because 50% at least were just useful accidents.
But my point is that if the rear brake wasn’t as tight, I wouldn’t have skidded at all.
2·2 days agoIt very much depends, actually. You can totally take a photograph of a single person walking on the street. Especially if their face isn’t clearly visible, like taking a photo from behind.
It would be determined on a case by case basis. Ofc even unrecognised is wrong if you actually follow a person instead of just taking a shot of a random person for art.
How is that interesting or news to anyone, honestly?
I seriously don’t understand in what sort of police state people thought they were living in that photography is banned in general public.
Well depends on what I’d have obviously, and what the island is like.
But assume basic glamping equipment and a perfect island and I’d be better than now.
Of course crashing on an atoll somewhere without any equipment would be pretty bleak. Deadly even.