aebletrae [she/her]

Their physiology is barely diverged so their intellects are likely to remain similar. Espionage is frequently the theme of Romulan encounters, which would help keep them up to date. And if they procreate more frequently than every seven years, they might have a much larger population even with greater murderousness, with more people being advantageous for tech development.

chiS peD Soch wo’rIvpu’ je is a classic of the genre, but the sanitization for a human audience is worse than the Disney treatment of the Brothers Grimm.

SuvwI’ qu’ SoH vIHar

Following the links will take you to a handy search tool.

I believe, since it’s a recruitment poster, the translation is “We seek programmers for a great mission.”

• Qu’ = mission
• Dun = to be great
• -vaD = for
• ghun = to program
• -wI’ = one who does
• DI- = we — them
• Sam = to seek

I saw The Wrath of Khan as a kid, quite possibly before seeing any of the series, so there’s never been any question of it not being representative of Star Trek for me, though I can see how someone approaching chronologically might see more of a disparity.

However, TOS had plenty of deaths, including destruction of starships, as did V’Ger’s, uh, collection of data, so does TWoK really stand apart in that regard? Chekov and Terrell kick off the plot while surveying planets, encountering a strange alien creature, and Kirk and co. find an underground paradise; I see that as fitting the explorative aspects of the show, at least somewhat. The villain is defeated with teamwork, deception, and by outplaying him, common to the original series. And the story raises some ethical questions regarding cheating, playing god, and marooning, again in the tradition of the show. I see the differences as more stylistic than substantial, but as I said, personal history affects my perspective.

As far as general movie principles go, music can be a strong influence on audiences, and Wrath of Khan has a great score.

We don’t allow slave labor like communism does.

You might want to recheck that constitution.

Oh, no, what am I saying? You don’t want to do that, because that would once more point out that you’re clueless in your assertions. Now I don’t want to read any more of them. And I’m free to turn you down, right?

Bad faith it is, then. Got it.

I know you deleted your earlier nonsense, but I saw some of it first, so I know how out of touch you are. You were wrong about how much wealth people have, but even after having that corrected, here you are with “It’s just how the world works”, another incorrect assertion that might describe your experience of the world, but is unrepresentative for humanity as a whole.

Most people don’t have the luxuries you so clearly take for granted. Turning down exploitative employment is only an option for those with money in reserve. Most people do not have that. Going somewhere else means separation from family and friends—easy enough for the thoroughly unlikable, but community is important to most members of a social species. And, anyway, that’s assuming there aren’t legal restrictions like immigration controls. As I said before, most lives are more constrained than yours, and that isn’t because those people are any less deserving. That is how the world works.

I’m going to suggest you read the article “Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future” by Edward Luttwak. Don’t worry, it’s just a warning, and it starts:—

That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth

so it’s not commie propaganda. But it might relieve you of some of your misconceptions, since you clearly aren’t listening to us here. Of course, you could just carry on regardless, but then it’ll be just far too clear that you’re not acting in good faith.

This is the reasoning that leads to “if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them” with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose “choices” are not as unconstrained as the ones you’re familiar with.

The problem with notable examples is that they’re pretty much never representative examples.

If wealth were actually distributed in the US equally that might be true, but as it is it’s more than double what most Americans have, even ignoring inflation.

The average net worth of all American families was $746,820, according to the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, while the median figure was $121,760.

— The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity

Ah, Enhanced, the folks that brought us interrogation.