GuyFleegman

It’s almost as if time itself is pushing back and events reinsert themselves and all this was supposed to happen back in 1992 and I’ve been trapped here for 30 years!

This line is a pretty conspicuous breach of the fourth wall placed there by the current stewards of the franchise to tell us that we’re back to pre-Kelvin timeline time travel rules. The whole “time travel creates two discrete timelines” notion is gone. It was a one-off to justify the Kelvin timeline, and now we’re done with it.

It’s all one timeline and while that timeline is in a constant state of flux due to time travelers tinkering with it on a regular basis, it’s still one big wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey timeline. Therefore, the answer to every “are X and Y in the same timeline?” question is a continuously shifting “maybe” which largely depends on how you choose to understand “the timeline.”

To put a finer point on it, this is the writing staff telling the fanbase to chill out about timelines. Akiva Goldsman speaking to CinemaBlend, emphasis mine:

This is a correction. Because otherwise, it’s silly, or Star Trek ceases to be in our universe…By the way, this happened in Season 1, so this is not a Season 2 [issue]. It’s a pilot issue. We want Star Trek to be an aspirational future. We want to be able to dream our way into the Federation as a Starfleet. I think that is the fun of it, in part. And so, in order to keep Star Trek in our timeline, we continue to push dates forward. At a certain point, we won’t be able to. But obviously, if you start saying that the Eugenics Wars were in the 90s, you're kind of fucked for aspirational in terms of the real world.

Translation: the Star Trek canon is going to keep shifting forward to accommodate keeping it in our future. More broadly, we should all accept some measure of canon flexibility so Star Trek is always set in an aspirational future, well suited for telling morality tales in space which are relevant to modern issues.

You're characterizing what is likely to be the best reviewed game of the year as "nothing special" and you "don't see how" that's a hot take? Really?

What exactly do you think "hot take" means?

Hence, "hot take."

... it is, to date, the best reviewed game of the year

Warcraft III. Voodoo2 wasn't cutting it, upgraded to a GeForce4 MX420.

.... which still wasn't really cutting it, so I spent every penny to my name and upgraded to a Radeon 9700 Pro like 6 months later.

Man, I loved that card. Used it for years. To this day I think it was the card I held onto the longest.

Teams is trash and literally no one would use if it it wasn't bundled with 365. So, yep.

So you're saying you want a serious Lemmy instance with Star Trek news and in-depth analysis... that's full of shitposts and jamaharon?

Hot take

Compared to my previous take this one is ice cold, but Elden Ring and Tears of the Kingdom.

That’s all true and it’s never really bothered me because, possible hot take incoming, PS exclusives are pretty milquetoast. I will concede that Sony’s first party studios have honed their ability to make “open world third person action game with crafting and stealth elements” with impressive consistency, but that’s the most common genre of AAA game and IMO Sony isn’t even making the best ones, just accessible and consistently above average ones.

If you want that kind of game you have a zillion options on every platform.

PC player complaining about the cost of a PlayStation is new to me. Isn’t it normally the other way around? Isn’t a PS5 about as expensive as a decent GPU alone?