All they had to do was have a new crew like 50 to 100 years after the events of Voyager/DS9
This is what ended up happening with STD because all the concepts of the show were so dumb the writers kept boxing themselves in.
New magic instant FTL that never gets talked about in any other Trek show? Classified.
Spock's secret human sibling who taught Spock all he knows? Classified.
Same human who grew up around Vulcans, is more Vulcan than any Vulcan but also constantly shouting and crying which goes against every single basic concept of Vulcans, emotions, and the Kholinar? CLASSIFIED!
So after several disasters that were all caused by the main cast, including starting the Klingon war, recruiting a cannibal, genocidal nazi, and crying more than even a CW show, the ship leaves for the 31st century where it gets to decide how all the previous other stories ended and what they move towards.
Which is the same problem and biggest issue Star Wars has due to the Disney trilogy being the endpoint for any show like the Mandalorian. No matter how good it might be it will inevitably have to end up where people hate things.
Doctor Who did something similar by deciding who and what thr penultimate Doctor would be in one of the disastrous Chibnal episodes.
He's meant to be the next Thanos and has had all of two appearances so far, albeit far more in depth than Thanos had by that count.
Thanos first appeared in the original Avengers but his credits cameo does little else than throw a comic reference about how the humans are "courting death" which is what Thanos does in the comics most of the time. His GotG appearance gave some development but he's mostly sitting in the shadows, probably in part as the cgi of the time wasn't that great. He's next seen in the Age of Ultron credits picking up the empty Infinity Gauntlet It wasn't until Infinity War, his fourth appearance, that the character actually received proper development. This coincides with improvements in cgi tech which is why the character looks so different compared to earlier versions.
By comparison Kang's first appearance in the Loki series gives a lot of background to the character, or at least the version Loki meets. But there is still development in who Kang is and what Kang means in the greater multiverse concept that the MCU is using for its current phase of movies.
While losing Josh Brolin between GotG and Age of Ultron wouldn't affect the MCU that much outside of voice lines because the character was always cgi, Kang is different because he isn't cgi.
That said it's still Marvel's fault for deciding to portray Kang the way they did since most of the time he's wearing his Conquerer garb that includes his blue face mask. Marvel could have built up to a face reveal but it wouldn't surprise me if some woke idiot pushed through the current version for the sake of idpol and social media points.
Beyond everything else it means the characters of Iron Lad and Immortus probably won't happen but then even by comic standards those characters have very convoluted histories which won't translate to the MCU at all because the audience doesn't have the attention span or brains for it.
Methodology may play into that. It's an old trope how the actions men take vs the ones women take are significantly different in terms of both potential bodily harm and risk.
Suicides by men often result in so much damage to a body the only chances of an open casket funeral are whether the head is intact enough to stick on the top half of a mannequin. Jumping infront of a train doesn't leave much except lasting PTSD for the train operator.
Suicides by women however are more likely to leave the body whole, if damaged in limited locations such as the wrists, eyes, mouth, and superficially the skin.
With enough makeup a mortician can hide the visible signs of someone drowning or ODing. Can't say the same if someone ended up in so many small pieces the best you can do for transporting is a bucket.
So when considering how serial killers may operate both the intention behind their actions as well notable differences in behaviour between sexes can influence actions.
Poison is historically and conceptually considered "a woman's weapon" to quote Ned Stark from Game of Thrones. Not only can it be difficult to detect but it removes the need for the killer to be present when the victim is poisoned, lessening the chances of being found out as well as removing the risk to the killer should the victim have a physical advantage. When compared to something more direct like a stabbing the act of poisoning might fail to be lethal if the dose involved isn't correct but not only does that let further attempts be made, but unlike with a stabbing there will be no defensive actions taken by the victim which can end up indicating the killer.
In addition to this the reasons why a serial killer takes action can be important to consider. The more overt an action the more likely it will eventually lead back to the perpetrator. So someone who kills to send a message will want their actions to be known, which will significantly increase the likelihood of being eventually stopped. Conversely someone who kills because they want to kill will likely want to keep killing. In this case methods which prevent alerting anyone are better suited.
This isn't to say "all shooters are men" or "all poisoners are women", Harold Shipman is a very high profile example of a man poisoning his victims and using his status as a doctor to facilitate his murders, but the typical distributions of each and similar methods will conform to sex of the killer.
On top of all this is the idea that "the best thief in the world is the one nobody knows about". This relates to the idea about what "the perfect crime" is. The simple answer to that is a crime nobody ever knows is committed. As such the "most famous" serial killer isn't necessarily "the best" because the infamy involved is likely a fact from after being stopped. The "best" will be the one who is never caught, never found out, and keeps killing until they stop for reasons outwith their own.
So taking all of this, and considering various stories that crop up from time to time about nurses who poison patients, the number of serial killers out there who are women is very likely significantly greater than is reported simply because most of them don't get found out.
If you were using the compact feature before you will need to update to old.reddit.com/.compact in order to keep the function.
Old.reddit should remain untouched but then the change to compact doesn't look like it was meant to go ahead yet, or that's a flimsy excuse being given to cover undocumented changes which is a staple of many companies these days because it prevents any discourse leading up to said changes.
We can't fight them in the courts, we can't fight them at the ballot box, we can't fight them with truths, traitors are forcing us to surrender.
Again you trot out this "we" bullshit when you inevitably turn on everyone for perceived slights such as wanting children and actually producing a genetic legacy [tradcucks] rather than buying the same Epic game multiple times as you do.
You have no side. You have no team. You don't even have something to leave behind and actively attack those that do or mention wanting to.
Additionally, this bill hasn't passed yet, nor does it apply to "the UK" as you've decided to title things here.
It's a private members bill that has passed a stage of the process and only applies to England and Wales. Not that you let details ever get in the way of sperging out.
"person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates" is stupid
It is.
person with a uterus
Hysterectomies are a thing so not every human female will have a uterus.
birthing person
Sterility is not exclusive to such human females, there are many medical reasons why pregnancy and childbirth will be impossible for some. One of my mother's closest friends is like this and as such my mother never, ever says anything complaining about myself or my siblings when around this friend because she cannot and will not ever be able to have children herself.
person who menstruates
In addition to the first point about hysterectomies, and the second point about medical reasons that can affect things, post menopausal human females don't menstruate.
So that's 3 for 3 on why these terms really are stupid.
lockdown was ended with the public refusing to comply.
Because the Tory government was repeatedly shown to be flat out ignoring their own rules. The rules they came up with, told everyone to follow, and then turned around and had numerous parties which ignored every single thing the public had been told to do.
This meant people missed funerals, hospital bedside last moments with relatives, and any form of socialising outside of what were little else than arbitrary group sizes.
Hell even the Queen ended up following them as shown when she was sitting, masked, by herself at her husband's state funeral. And it would be revealed the same Tory government had been partying into the early hours on the same morning of that funeral.
That is why the public stopped complying, the lying and hypocrisy from the ones in charge who made up the rules everyone was meant to be following. For months after those in government would drag their heels over admitting if anything had actually happened.
This is still going on this week with Boris Johnson being grilled over whether he lied about events during lockdown.
Deflection and dismissal of any and all accusations there were gatherings, meetings, parties, and other events that went on only to be repeatedly proven lying further because the newspapers who were carrying the stories were intentionally drip feeding the accusations over days to give those accused more than enough time to dig a hole of more lies before evidence would be published showing the rules had been broken. There were pictures taken at many of these events, officially taken and paid for with public spending money. That's how fucking stupid the Tory government is right now.
Let's play "Stats: How to lie through your teeth because normies are too fucking stupid to understand numbers".
Black children were 100 times more likely to be shot than white children during the first 21.5 months of the coronavirus pandemic
21.5 months seems like an oddly specific number to use here. 🤔
The study analyzed data from Philadelphia, which has the highest firearm homicide rate nationwide, and the three most populous cities in the U.S: New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago
🙄
So skewing the results before even starting by picking the superlative State for firearm homicide rates, and not bothering with any others? Did nobody see how this would affect the results? [Probably, which was the point.]
firearm assaults among people 18 and younger nearly doubled from 2015 to 2021,
Ah yes, 2015-2018, those horrible years of CoViD 2019 😷
from nearly nine children per 100,000 to nearly 17 children per 100,000.
Why is "nine" spelled out when "17" is not? This is basic consistency in report production and data publishing. "nine children per 100,000" alone is bad form, the fact there are subsequent data points also being reported in other formats just highlights the poor quality of typing and lack of editorial oversight going on.
The dataset included both fatal and nonfatal shootings for every city except Chicago (for which data on nonfatal injuries among children was not available).
...
So first, the data set is incomplete. Second, Chicago has a rep, possibly influencing why the data isn't included. Third, the fact it was was only 'nonfatal' injuries may also go against whatever narrative someone is hoping to push here so again that data was "lost" to then excuse it as 'not available'.
Among non-Hispanic white children,
Also known as "white children".
there was no increase in shootings.
This is where some useful idiot will come out with the galaxy brain take of "we need to lower the % of the other groups" which an even bigger useful idiot will take to mean bumping up the numbers here. Similar story happened when x% of reporters killed were mentioned to be female and how that number needed brought down, either ignorantly or maliciously, skipping over what that would mean for male reporters. Another similar story deals with hiring quotas when the sought after numbers can't be met due to a lack of desired groups so the alternative option is to fire the others and bring down the "excess" proportions.
Black children saw the most significant increase, from 27 children per 100,000 to 34
Hold up, let's go back to that earlier claim in the article.
Black children were 100 times more likely to be shot than white children during the first 21.5 months of the coronavirus pandemic
Meaning it's already the case that this group is 3 times greater than the average rate, of "nine" [can't have that data point stand out too easily or this issue I'm raising here might be picked up by too many people]. Which will therefore drag the average rate higher than any of the other groups sit at.
So bringing up 'during the first 21.5 months of the coronavirus pandemic' is both pointless and disingenuous because the numbers were already that much higher since the data set it reported to start in 2015, 5 whole years before CoViD was a thing!
For those wondering why it's 5 years and not 4, first of all 2015-2019 is 5 years inclusive: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Second, CoViD might be called SARS-II-CoViD-2019 but it was only in the last few months anyone really noticed it and "the pandemic" sure as hell didn't start in that year. Lockdowns and other measures came about from March 2020 onwards.
Anyway, back to the numbers.
Black children saw the most significant increase, from 27 children per 100,000 to 34
Raw numbers alone 27 to 34 is only about a 25% increase. So the headline is a lie. Twice.
Shootings of Children Nearly Doubled
No.
During the Pandemic
Also no.
The Black-white disparity grew from a relative risk of 25 percent to 100 percent; the Hispanic-white disparity tripled; and the disparity between Asian and white children nearly tripled.
Before dealing with the actual numbers, again this reporting addresses similar things with differing expressions. '25 percent to 100 percent' vs 'tripled'. Also note the formatting for what words are capitalised and what words are not.
Now for the actual numbers.
the Hispanic-white disparity tripled;
Hispanic numbers weren't mentioned at all in the article.
the disparity between Asian and white children nearly tripled.
Asian numbers weren't mentioned either. In fact the term "Asian" only appears twice in the entire article and this is one of the two. The other is;
“The concentration of firearm victimization among Black, Hispanic, and Asian children must be addressed at the individual, community, and societal levels,” the researchers wrote. “It is critical to focus community safety and mental health interventions in the most affected communities and to target structural racism as a fundamental driver of the U.S. firearm violence epidemic.”
So firearm issues require addressing at 'individual, community, and societal levels' but this still an 'epidemic' despite the study only looking at one State and three cities.
“These stats are astonishing, but not surprising.
This means the writers know why all of this is happening. Claiming something is 'not surprising' requires both an existing knowledge base [mostly] and the preconceived opinion/prejudge explaining that data set. Try seeing what happens if someone else says the exact same thing, either verbatim or from the other side of the coin.
Bots.