Dieser Inhalt wird in Deutschland nicht angezeigt. Weitere Informationen

Popular Culture:

Nerd Culture:

Science, Software, Hardware:

Zeroth World:

Comics/Images/Audios/Videos/Games/Art:

I just watched the new film "Star Trek Beyond". I expected the worst. And I was still disappointed. It is amazing. It is like they actively tried to make this film bad in as many ways as possible. The film feels like a B-Movie with too much budget for CGI.

I will black out spoilers in this review.

Ok, honestly, I am a Trekkie, and it is hard to really satisfy me. But this film is really beyond my worst expectations (pun intended). This film is not only bad by Star Trek standards. If you really want to watch it … I'd recommend waiting until it is shown on TV. It's not worth the money.

I really have to force myself to say anything good about it. But well, let's start with the few good things, just to be fair: They did introduce the universal translator, which was – conformant to the story – only a prototype at that time. Furthermore, I think Zachary Quinto does a very good job playing Spock, and Karl Urban does a very good job playing McCoy. Both show that they are very good actors. The Xindi are mentioned, and there are some subtle references to the original series. And a foto of the old crew is shown. And apparently they spent a lot of money on special effects, which are mindless for the largest part, but beautiful.

The story of the film is trash. I mean seriously … a story that bases on a life drinker?

There is no real motivation behind the "bad guy's" intentions. I have read that this film was all about questioning the goals of star fleet, and that he should have valid points. I don't see any valid point except when you count his Hitler-style position on war. He just wants to kill. But then again, why does he use this inefficient kind of weapon. His "bee armada" seems pretty strong, and there are other gases that he could put into the vent of this (unrealistic) city.

He is not interesting by any means. The acting is miserable. And except for the major "plot twist" that he is a human there is nothing surprising about him. Btw, he said that most of his crew died. How did he come to get his "bee army" and all the pilots in it? Why is he a human and still talking in that alien language by default?

Nothing is logical or consistent or interesting about the main storyline. When the alien that lured them into the nebula said that Krall wants to "save you from yourselves", I hoped that this might be a story about the temporal cold war, because there was some artifact that could be used as a weapon. There would be so many possibilities of consistent stories that would somehow satisfy me as a Trekkie and not require major changes to the rest of the film.

On the other hand, even if you are willing to accept the mindless story with all its inconsistencies, they did not make anything out of it. The bad guy has no personality. The fight scenes are boring. The dialogues are predictable.

The side stories of the movie are not really developed either. The struggles Kirk has in the beginning are completely irrelevant for the rest of the movie. Spock's struggle is shown a few times, but I account that to Zachary Quinto being such an excellent actor.

And what the fuck were they thinking when they decided that some metal music sent to the bee army would make them instantly explode? Was this intended as a reference to Mars Attacks?

So I guess, that is what they meant when calling the film "Star Trek Beyond": We are beyond Star Trek. We have to face the fact that we must live without it now.

My recommentation to paramount: Maybe ask Terry Gilliam or at least Uwe Boll to direct the next Star Trek film.

It is a well-known fact that ZFC\vdash_i TND:

Assume we wanted to prove \neg Q \vee Q. We can then, by the schema of specification, define the sets A := \{x\in 2\mid x =
0\vee Q\} and B := \{x\in 2\mid x = 1\vee Q\}. We constructively know that both sets are non-empty: At least 0\in
A and 1\in B. Therefore, \{A, B\} is a set of non-empty sets, and therefore, by the axiom of choice, there is a function g such that g(A)\in A and g(B)\in B, that is, we know that g(B)=0\vee g(B)=1 and g(A)=0\vee
g(A)=1. Trivially, g(A)=1\rightarrow Q, hence, g(A)=0\vee Q. Similarly, g(B)=1\vee Q. Hence, g(A)\neq g(B)\vee Q. On the other hand, Q\rightarrow
A=B=\{0,1\}, therefore also Q\rightarrow
g(A)=g(B). Contraposition (which is constructive in this direction) yields g(A)\neq g(B)\rightarrow \neg Q. Hence, \neg Q\vee Q.

Now, in my opinion, the problem here is not the axiom of choice. Let us recall what the axiom of choice says: If we proved that every set in a collection has an element, then we can find an element for every such set. I find this principle very constructive: If we can prove that something exists, then we can find it. As long as we cannot prove the existence of things that we cannot find, the axiom of choice should not do any harm to constructivity, as far as I see – correct me if I am wrong.

Of course, if you can prove the existence of things that you cannot find, the axiom of choice might make the situation worse. And in my opinion, in the case of ZFC, in this proof, the schema of specification is the actual culprit. Whcih is why I wonder why even some "constructive" set theories have a similar axiom scheme. For some reason, the impression that "smaller" sets are always simpler than "larger" sets is prevalent, and from that perspective, separation is not a problem. I wonder where this comes from.

Even without any deeper knowledge of recursion theory or logic, it should be clear that while the set of natural numbers \mathbb{N} is rather simple, there are subsets which are more complicated. Of course, you can encode the halting problem into a subset of \mathbb{N}, but you don't have to go that far: Consider the set of prime numbers. It is intuitively more complicated than \mathbb{N}. (This somehow reminds me of the concept of entropy, considering the "amount of information" encoded in a set. Not sure whether there is a formal correspondence, though.)

An obvious limitation one could impose to comprehension-like schemes would be that the propositions used need to be provably decidable. This would break the above proof in the sense that Q would be decidable from the start. And it makes more sense in a constructive setting: If we assume that we can decide a set, the resulting set would still be decidable. Not sure whether there exists a constructive set theory with such an axiom, though.

Just my two cent. Feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong.

Sorry for the delay. Been busy.

Popular Culture:

Science, Software, Hardware:

Zeroth World:

Comics/Images/Audios/Videos/Games/Art:

Quotes:

  • I fucking LOVE science. is handed peer reviewed journal Haha nonono I meant CGI pictures of space with misattributed quotes as captions.

Dieser Inhalt wird in Deutschland nicht angezeigt. Weitere Informationen

Popular Culture:

Science, Software, Hardware:

Zeroth World:

Comics/Images/Audios/Videos/Games/Art:

A policeman is searching a person. His pants are opened and he lifts the persons shirt, the belly button is visible. The person's shoes are taken off. The person wears virtual reality glasses. The scene is in front of a metal detector. Subtext: "To make searches more comfortable, the TSA began to provide VR glasses."

Dieser Inhalt wird in Deutschland nicht angezeigt. Weitere Informationen

Popular Culture:

Nerd Culture:

Science, Software, Hardware:

Zeroth World:

Comics/Images/Audios/Videos/Games/Art:

Quotes:

Dieser Inhalt wird in Deutschland nicht angezeigt. Weitere Informationen

Popular Culture:

Nerd Culture:

Science, Software, Hardware:

Zeroth World:

Comics/Images/Audios/Videos/Games/Art:

Quotes:

Panel 1: At a restaurant table. One person is sitting on a chair, with his pants dropped and some tube coming out of a box and into the down side of his chair, so it will probably be inserted into his colon. Another chair is shown which has a gap for these tubes. A confused person is shown who is anxiously leaning agains the table. A waiter lifts another such tube with his hand and says: "Sir, I have to demand you to turn around and remove your pants for the colonoscopy." The anxious person answers: "I just wanted to eat something. I don't want a colonoscopy!" The waiter answers "Yes, and thanks to the funding we get for performing these colonoscopies, you will get all of the food for free. And you will help making our food more healthy and enjoyable." -- Panel 2: The same scene. The anxious person sais "Can't I just pay for the foodinstead of having a colonoscopy?" The person who is already sitting is now saying "Come on, it doesn't feel that bad at all, and the food is good and free." and the waiter sais "Unfortunately, we currently do not have the resources to provide such a service." -- Panel 3: The restaurant is shown. It is named "Culex's". It is the only restaurant on a long road. The waiter sais "I cannot force you to do so. But I am afraid you will have to find another restaurant then." -- Subtext: "Do-Not-Track-Header"

Dieser Inhalt wird in Deutschland nicht angezeigt. Weitere Informationen

Mein Gott wurde in letzter Zeit viel über die AfD berichtet, ich hab einiges in meinen Bookmarks. Aber immer nur über irgendwelche Idioten die irgendwelchen Müll von sich geben. Mir ist das zu doof, wie viel unverdiente Aufmerksamkeit diese Partei bekommt, drum verlinke ich darüber nichts mehr. Wenn jemand einen Grund braucht die AfD nicht zu wählen, möge er ihr Programm lesen.

Popular Culture:

Nerd Culture:

Science, Software, Hardware:

Zeroth World:

Comics/Images/Audios/Videos/Games/Art:

Quotes:

  • People wait all week for friday, all year for summer, all life for happiness.