Promoting Piers Morgan in any shape or form is a bad thing.
I'm sorry to say, but your behaviour here has been more like a circus seal jumping up and clapping around. You haven't really delivered any substance.
I think you have a point, but you've not taken any opportunity to articulate it.
If you hit context you should see my reply one step above, I'd appreciate if you jumped in and commented towards that.
I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I'm going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
- Invincible main character: Michael Burnham survives even the most extreme hardship, where anyone else would have died.
- Perpetually high stakes: everything's always life or death, in a somewhat escalating way where they don't leave room to establish normal crew life. I would speculate the producers do this so as to avoid "boring" episodes - but such episodes do have significant value in fleshing out a rich and complete world.
- Michael Burnham is everything: she's always central to the core plot, everything is centred around her perspective.
- Lack of professionalism: the characters are more emotive, sure, but their emotions often come before their careers as Starfleet professionals. Starfleet is supposed to be this ideal society, but the characters don't really portray this. They're more like modern day people living in a Starfleet world.
- Inconsistent character development: many characters should have developed and progressed from the experiences we've witnessed them go through, but they still stick to some of their Flanderised tropes.
- Incompetent crew: everyone's clueless until the main character (Michael) tells them what the solution is.
- Inconsistent technology: the show is set in the early days of Star Trek, yet is more flashy and modern looking than much of 90s Trek.
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn't really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I'd still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn't mean it's a terrible show, but it's far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.
Here's the page I found it in: https://ivfmeeting.com/products/space-environment-significantly-alters-sperm-functions-the-micro-11-investigation-conducted-aboard-the-international-space-station
It includes a YouTube video, and summary of the conclusions:
TL;DR: Sperm still moves just fine in space, it just doesn't know which way to go, which is probably detrimental. At least, in a petri dish or whatever, who knows what will happen if you try to impregnate a lady like that one in Big Lebowski.
Fair enough. Personally, I'm happy to make a judgement call based on the balance of probabilities, rather than reserving it until all reasonable doubt has been dismissed. It's not like my opinion has any consequence against them, nor would I be unwilling to change my view if more evidence came to light.
If anyone else had been responsible for her injuries, I'm sure they would have been investigated and something would have been published about it.
Far too many people seem to be itching to find an enemy, all so they can justify their desire for vindictive bloodlust.
Killing is a bad thing, and can only ever be justified when it prevents something worse. But that doesn't mean you should enjoy it.
Not even that, I remember 15 years ago universities saying that people had 3 devices on average, yet today Netflix only allows you 2 on their basic package. Now, people almost certainly use more than that. If I can't move from one device to another conveniently, then what's the point of paying?
By all means, limit simultaneous access between devices, but locking me to so few is just punitive. Who wants to pay for punishment?
Man, I forgot how old that was. RIP to the guy as well, such a genuine bloke, IRL moreso than the Sportacus character.
You forgot the part where they try to kill off piracy, because if they charge more then more people pirate, but if they prevent people from pirating then they can charge a whole lot more.
Piracy actually keeps prices down.
Apparently measuring a person's natural walking gait is far more effective at identifying people. Who knew Monty Python had it right, so long ago.
Guessing this is mean average, what's the median?
Israel needs to eradicate Hamas, Hamas needs to eradicate Israel. They can't both be right, thus, it can only be that both are wrong.