Why holograms in Discovery, but none during the TOS era?

This is an attempt at an in-universe explanation, also written as a reply under a video.

Shutting holographic communication down could have been to prevent leaks (during the Klingon-Federation War), but also to allow for increased verification of a person's identity in DS9, because it was very simple to forge transmitted imagery to appear as something else.

Other reasons for not including holograms would simply be long distance and increased communications.

In the first case, a 2D picture takes less resources to encode and compress, while a holographic image can be quite bandwidth-intensive.

In the second case, the volume (amount) of communications increased to such a level, that it became impractical to permit holographic data transmission at the expense of more 2D or plain radio contact that might have been of greater importance.

After the Klingon-Federation War, many of the base stations that would have otherwise supported holographic communications, must have been destroyed by the Klingons, while existing comms antennas were unable to handle such a traffic load.

Rebuilding that network would have taken a very long time, given, that the Klingons almost got to Earth, and on presumption, that they destroyed almost everything else.

Yet another reason could be loss of knowhow and production facilities during the war, making it impossible to create new kit on a mass scale that would have supported holographic communications.

There's also the trick of looking less advanced on purpose in order to misguide potential enemies as to the level of technology a Federation starship really possesses.

Brexiti kahvel

Keegi kommentaator "Postimehe" ühe artikli kommentaaris väitis, et Euroopa Liit peab Ühendkuningriigiga läbi rääkima, et teha "vastastikku kasulik lepe nagu Norra või Islandiga."

Euroopa Liit tahabki sellist lepet nagu Norra või Islandiga (sh. ühisturg, tööjõu ja teenuste vaba liikumine jne.), aga Briti kõige kõvemad Brexiti-meelsed, kes on veidi äärmuslikumates parteides, aga keda on ka väga palju tooride partei parlamendifraktsioonis, ei taha seda, sest siis oleks see "pehme Brexit".

Kusjuures "kõva Brexit" tekitaks Briti majandusele suurt kahju kasvõi seeläbi, et Ühendkuningriik EL-ist lahkudes lahkuks ka kõigist kaubandus- ja muudest lepingutest, mille Euroopa Liit on pikkade aastate tööga läbi rääkinud. Ning kui Ühendkuningriigi majandus kannatab, kannatab ka Euroopa Liidu ja selle liikmesriikide (sh Eesti) majandus.

Brexit ei ole kasulik Ühendkuningriigile, Euroopa Liidule ja vabale maailmale laiemalt.

Teine vaidlusküsimus on Iiri piir (piir Briti valduses oleva Põhja-Iirimaa ja Iiri Vabariigi vahel), kus füüsilise piiri puudumine tagab rahu, aga seepärast, et see piir on sisuliselt Euroopa Liidu-sisene. Iirimaa ehk Iiri Vabariik tahab, et tema ja Põhja-Iirimaa vahel füüsilist piiri jätkuvalt ei oleks peale Ühendkuningriigi võimalikku Euroopa Liidust lahkumist, ning Euroopa Liit seisab südikalt väikeriigi õiguste eest.

"Pehme Brexiti" asemel tehti "diil", aga see just hääletati maha seepärast, et (1) paljude tooride meelest pole see "õige" Brexit, sest see "diil" oleks ka "pehme", ning (2) leiboristid ei taha nagu üldse Brexitit ja leiboristide juhile Jeremy Corbynile ei meeldi Peaminister Theresa May' poliitika silmaotsastki.

Viimase asjaolu tõttu loobib temagi May' kodaratesse kaikaid, lootuses, et võib-olla äkki tehakse uued üldvalimised, kus Corbyn peaministri-positsioonile kandideerida saaks.

Õnneks kukkus äsjane May-vastane umbusaldushääletus läbi. — Ja nii ongi suur osa Briti rahvast koos Peaminister May'ga kahvlis: vanamoodi nagu ei taha, aga uutmoodi ei saa ka :-)

Üks lahendus oleks Brexit uue referendumi asemel lihtsalt tühistada.

Teised lahendused on huvitavamad, aga nendest ma ei kirjuta.

Trains and roads in Europe and America

This was in reply to a comment in YouTube about trains.

The reason that European high-speed train routes from London to Athens and Paris to Athens are not there, is, because they have not been built yet. A lot of it had, and still has plenty to do with world history.

Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, and this formally connected Greece with the rest of the Union on contiguous land. Romania and Bulgaria have yet to join the Schengen Area.

Italy's problems have more to do with mismanagement of their money, and Greece is only slowly emerging from its debt crisis (due also to then-really-bad finances).

Now that there's Brexit, the UK's position with regard to future rail connections to the rest of the EU is uncertain.

In the U.S., the Insterstate Highway System was built, because Dwight D. Eisenhower and other leading politicians noticed, that existing roads were below standard to support a modern state; the historic Route 66 was particularly overused. While the congestion of Route 66 supported all manner of roadside businesses and livelihoods, then it was also an infrastructure bottleneck.

On the other hand, the flipside to having built the Interstate Highway System is, that a large number of private traffic and short-haul business moved to the asphalt, with rail infrastructure displaced — "thanks" in no small part to then-the Big Five automakers greasing the wheels of politicians. Perhaps less intentionally, but with greater disruptive effect, rail got sidelined by airplanes and jumbo jets. The latter reduced travel times so much, that the jets and the Interstate in combination substantially decreased demand for passenger rail services, reducing the status of rail in America the even further.

To the best of my knowledge, California's problems with high-speed rail have been related to the politics almost anywhere in the U.S. of habitually not wanting to dish out enough taxpayer money for any large project, while at the same time, nursing pipe dreams of federal funding, when the state (any state) is legislated and governed by one party, and the federal government by another.

Miks Eestis perearsti juurde ei saa, ning miks perearsti juures ei käida

Perearstide kättesaadavus on kehv, kuna nad ei ole motiveeritud haigeid visiiditasuta vastu võtma, ning seetõttu on kõik tasuta ajad umbes.

Tasulised ajad on seevastu kohe järgmine päev saadaval, ning vähem kannatlikud, kui ka vähem maksuvõimelised patsiendid on selle ahne skeemi lihtsalt läbi näinud ja lähevad otse EMOsse, kus visiiditasu on väiksem kui visiiditasu ahne perearsti juurde, ning patsient võib suhteliselt kindel olla selle peale, et ta tõsisema häda puhul samal päeval läbi vaadatakse.

Eraldi vajab äramärkimist ka see, et EMOsse pöörduvad pigem ravikindlustuseta inimesed, kellele perearsti visiiditasu nagunii üle jõu käib. Kui see grupp inimesi saaks automaatselt ja igasugu lisatingimusteta^* teistega võrdse ravikindlustuse ja igasugustest visiiditasudest vabastuse, väheneks EMOsse pöördumine tunduvalt. (Loodame, et nii läheb, kui näiteks seadusandja kunagi selle reegli vastu võtab.)

Teine probleem on nõue saada saatekiri eriarsti juurde, mis osaliselt ajabki umbe perearstide vabad ajad.

Kolmas probleem on see, et tasuta vabad ajad ajavad umbe pensionärid. Nii neid kui ka noori ja tööealisi patsiente silmas pidades tuleks teha kõikide EMOde läheduses olevad eraldi 24/7 tervisekeskused, kuhu pöördudes saaks inimene (vanusest sõltumata) kohe läbi vaadatud ja hinnatud, et millist ravi on tarvis, ning et kas on tarvis viia haiglasse. Niimoodi lahendataks ära EMO-arstide ülekoormatus.

Neljas probleem on tõenäoliselt pearaha. Õigem on mistahes Haigekassast tulev raha siduda patsiendi visiidiga, et arst oleks motiveeritud võtma vastu patsiente, kes tasulisel visiidil käia ei saa.

^* lisatingimused — nagu praegu kehtiv töö otsimise nõue registreerimata töötutele. Võeh. Kuidas nad siis tööle saavad minna, kui nad haiged on, aga abi ei saa, sest nad on töötud, ning ei saa "aktiivselt tööd otsida", kuna nad on haiged??

Reduced tourism to the United States

This was written in reply to a comment post in Slashdot, but then I'd worked on the reply so much, that it merited its own blog post.

Disclaimer: This post is an opinion piece, and does not rely on hard data.

It's called the Trump Slump. Travel from quality origin countries has slumped, especially from friendly places like the European Union and Canada. Well, there's lots of anecdotal evidence, too. I can't say much about OZ and NZ, because I haven't seen the articles of topic mention them. Other origin countries are those under the Muslim Ban, but a reduction of trips from these falls within the statistical margin of error.

LatAm is strange. Wealthy Latin Americans are unlikely to traverse the U.S. border anyway, unless absolutely necessary — be it a major health-related procedure, friends/family dying, custody, possible inheritance, and better safety. Not-wealthy ones fleeing violence and persecution are more likely to arrive the "old-fashioned way".

The Trump Slump is mitigated by moves from China and Russia, where the rich of those states seek to park a share of their assets in America, should the two regimes' economies ever tank, or other conditions worsen. Both are also pregnant with the "anchor baby" practice.

Do keep in mind, that official travel data about the States are susceptible to being massaged by D.C. tourism lobbies in order to look politically appeasing; such, that visits 'to North America' are mentioned, and then with data involving increased arrivals to Mexico and Canada to offset the actual slump in the U.S.

Countries with large amounts of poor people cannot afford to issue travel warnings on America, because they find it expedient, when some people leave, in order to off-load some of the real or perceived weight on society that could otherwise not be eased.

A free country relying on historically good relations with the U.S. lets the news about things being terrible stateside do their own work. Because reasons.

Suggestions for basic screencasting on YouTube

This was initially written as a reply to an uploader who created a video about the NoScript web extension for Firefox Quantum. The text has been edited for further clarity.

Before uploading:

Audio is important. Do a soundcheck with headphones, since badly-recorded narration can have issues both with volume and treble. Is the microphone close to your mouth, and is the recording volume high enough?

Use the headphones to compare with a normal non-Vevo music video, for which you have to keep the system volume low to avoid loudness, and then with your own video. For this, make sure the YouTube video volume is up, and system volume is low — start at 5–10% for "Volume" / "Wave" in Windows, and then gradually go up. The volume of a popular non-Vevo music video is the baseline, and the volume of your video should be similar.

Before screencasting, consider setting the monitor resolution to something lower than your current one. This would allow people with smaller displays (on smartphones), and/or slower connections to better see what's going on. (I do not know what your screen's actual resolution is, so I'm assuming Full HD.)

For example, I have a display with a 1360x768 resolution, and to keep the 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio, I have in Windows the option to reduce the resolution to 1280x720 pixels — 720p is the lowest HD rating; also the earliest. Based on a screenshot scaled down to 640x360 pixels, the text there was more-or-less visible.

If your screen recorder allows capturing a single program window, you can reduce its size even further. Yet another option is to temporarily increase the software user interface text, or create a separate operating system profile for screen recording, where the display resolution is lower (such as 1280x720, or less, if available), and where the UI text is bigger.

Advanced screen recording programs may allow zooming in and out, or you can use the features offered by your video editing software.

Why did Kirk's Bird-of-Prey fly slow at Warp 9 for time travel in Star Trek IV?

This was meant to be a reply to someone on YouTube. The question is interesting, because it posits, that at high warp, the ship would have overshot the Sun very quickly.

The warp bubble is typically static, and the ships inside of it do not move, while the bubble is at warp. So, I surmised, that the movement could have been slower, because of the following hypotheses thayt I pullled right out of my head:

(1) They had to move the ship inside the warp bubble, and/or

(2) that high warp was used not just to maintain the warp bubble and still move it at quite high speed relative to the rest of the space, but also to keep it stronger to protect the ship from the Sun's heat and massive gravity, and to extend the bubble's length or depth across the trajectory and through the Sun's Corona in order to make the jump.

Therefore, the expended energy was Warp 9+, while the actual velocity was slower, as the distance inside / depth of the bubble was greater than the pre-Warp-speed distance between the ship and the Sun. This was probably the crux of Spock's computations.