Amazing thread here from Cal Horton, with an incredibly fierce ending!
bsky.app/profile/fier...
11.03.2026 04:02
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
Amazing thread here from Cal Horton, with an incredibly fierce ending!
bsky.app/profile/fier...
Amazing thread here from Cal Horton, with an incredibly fierce ending!
bsky.app/profile/fier...
I do like that idea of morale being a mix of victories and keeping to Federation principles. It's not too different from how Across the Unknown handles it to be fair. Alt-Riker's end in Parallels came about when he abandoned those principles to try and stay in that alt universe.
> time travel, Q, defeat the Borg
Combine all three and you've got the very camp Star Trek: Borg game from 1996.
Damnit @wishda.bsky.social, now you're making me really want to make this game. If only I had the money for the TNG license, and to set up my own studio to make it.
If you have the narrative freedom from a what if the Borg assimilated Earth scenario, undoing that with time travel seems almost too cliché. That's not to say you couldn't do it, it'd just have to be one possible good outcome among several.
It was the loss at Earth though that I think was more devastating to alt-Riker's timeline. Even in the prime timeline, Starfleet lost at Wolf 359, they only won the day because Data hacked all the Borg to sleep. So you'd want to time travel back to that ideally. Bit of a cop-out though.
For everyone else in Discovery it was safe, because they only jumped time. The implication from that episode was that it was the jumping of both time and space that was the problem. Though Voyager itself did establish that time travel can also be harmful; temporal psychosis in the episode Relativity
You could, though then you start to run into the problem Emperor Georgiou had in season 3 of Star Trek Discovery; as Kovich said, your molecules are only meant to exist in the time and space in which they were created.
You'd have to give some sort of positive win condition, where you can kick the Borg's ass out of Earth and the Federation. Voyager was able to do that thanks to the deus ex machina of Future Janeway. That's harder to do at the time of TNG, when the Borg were more overwhelmingly powerful.
Oooo, alternate history where you're captain of a Galaxy Class, the Borg are everywhere. Definitely has potential for the same core loop as Across the Unknown, the difficulty would be in making it anything other than a curbstomp by the Borg or the slow death-march to dying in another quantum reality
The other lawyer just randomly saying "objection" with no further comments really brings me back to 90s US court room dramas and comedies.
Ours better be about experiencing bij.
LMAO what?!? How does this keep getting more and more absurd?
Many serious questions need to be asked of the health minister, and everyone else who was involved in these reviews. And depending on those answers, in ordinary times this may well be a resignation worthy failure.
26) Were any non-experts who are known for publishing pseudoscience and misinformation, like SEGM, Genspect, GETA, involved with this review?
27) If yes to 26, why were they involved?
27) If yes to 26, who were they and what was their contributions?
23) Were any external subject matter experts from WPATH, EPATH, and/or BAGIS included in this review?
24) If no to 23, why not?
25) If yes to 23, who were they and what was their contributions?
19) Were any other assessment tools considered for use?
20) If yes to 19, what were they?
21) If yes to 19, why weren't they used?
22) The consultation page links to Appendices A, B, D, E, and F. Where is Appendix C and what is in it?
16) Why was modified-GRADE used when assessing the identified papers in each review?
17) What modifications were made to GRADE for its use in this review?
18) How were these modifications decided upon and justified?
18) Were the modifications the same across all 10 papers?
13) How and why were the inclusion criteria for each review determined?
14) How and why were the exclusion criteria for each review determined?
15) What external review process did these review papers go through, before they were used to determine clinical practice?
11) If yes to 9, and the models impacted upon the analysis of the selected papers, how was the output of the models validated?
12) If yes to 9, and the models were used in the drafting, how was the output validated?
8) Why are there papers excluded from one review, that are not mentioned in other reviews where they would be relevant for consideration?
9) Was there any generative AI or LLM use, at any stage in this review?
10) If yes to 9, what model was used and what was it used for?
4) How were those subsets chosen?
5) What justification was used for those subsets?
6) How do those subsets align with clinical practice, both old and current?
7) How do those subsets align with research best practices?
Questions that urgently need to be asked to Wes Streeting.
1) Who authored these reviews, and what were their qualifications?
2) What external advisors or agencies were involved with these?
3) Who decided the intervention subsets chosen for the review?
Don't. Don't give me hope...
SPH do have a list of people on their website. But how many of them were involved, and whether or not any external advisors, researchers, or other groups or partner agencies were involved is completely unknown.
www.sph.nhs.uk/about-us/our...
Good science is not done in secret. The names and affiliations of the authors are ordinarily published. This set might require some targeted FOI requests to unearth though.
Some of the parameters do seem odd though, but I also can't rule out some sort of formatting fuckery at play, as they also aren't consistently formatted between review papers.
Skimming over the search strategies for the two oestrogen monotherapy reviews, there is surprisingly little commonality between them.
I've not had to do a Medline search before though, so make no comment on the effectiveness or lack thereof of the chosen strategies.
Terrible thought. With how much the government have been pushing LLM use, could some of the absolute nonsense within these "reviews" have emerged from whatever models they're using?
