this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
92 points (89.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43979 readers
628 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess you could assume that any substantial piece of matter will disrupt the cloaking field, but if you're thinking about autonomous weapons there's all kinds of other plot holes, too. It's pretty rare anyone has to deal with drones or mines of any kind in Star Trek, even though you'd think it would be super convenient with mostly-unblockable communications over subspace.
There were cloaked mines in DS9 and in ENT. But, like the transporter, they are as burdensome to the writers' room as they are useful.
Yeah, at this point, with Star Trek I pretty much just treat the "science" like magic. It would be a tall order to have consistent rules with no exceptions over decades, I get that. I don't think it's too much to ask the characters to have consistent motivations and abilities, though.
That's the thing about fiction. Unlike in reality, the characters have to be believable.