They’re all worth watching, if only so you can make your own decisions.

The holo-crew is a really smart idea for a solo freighter captain.

Good catch, I’d completely forgotten about that line:

Some of these hulls are organic. Some…some are completely comprised of holographic-containment walls.

wait, does Discovery has a holodeck?

They actually seem to have what you’re describing, more or less - Burnham was able to run complete holosimulations in her quarters.

sighs, opens the drawer of crayons

Star Trek’s Best Kept Secret

Naveen Andrews is such a perfect choice, I’m mad I never thought of it before.

I think the Picard designs are largely fine…ironically with the exception of the final hero ship, which I do not care for.

One thing to consider is hashtags. Each Lemmy posts automatically gets a hashtag that’s identical to the community’s @ name (so, this post has #canada). It might be worth poking around the Fediverse to see if there are existing hashtags that might make sense, and to give the communities those names, just to extend visibility beyond Lemmy.

They apparently have an XL Protostar slotted for January 2026.

At this time, it would probably be easier to make that charge stick. I don’t know if “force” has a concrete legal definition.

I can’t help but feel like there’s a way to express discontent that doesn’t also encourage the weaponization of citizenship to circumvent the legal system.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

( c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Basically, the US government would atually have to use force to overthrow the government, and we would have to be able to prove in court that Elon participated in those actions.

Immigration lawyer Gabriela Ramo says that under Canadian law, someone’s citizenship can only be revoked if it can be proven that they committed fraud or misrepresentation to obtain it.

“Before they could move to do this, they would need to introduce legislation, there would have to be amendments to the current Citizenship Act,” said Ramo, former chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration section. “There’s no provision that would allow them to pursue revocation of citizenship of a Canadian birth, by virtue of his birth to a Canadian mother.”

Whereas stripping him of his citizenship would accomplish nothing at all.

The petition is purely symbolic

I don’t think people have really thought through what is symbolic of.

“We don’t have time to put people on trial” is not a take I’m prepared to get behind.

And even if it were…how would revoking his citizenship change any of what you just described?

I’m pretty sure the portion of the Act that site refers to was repealed in 2017.

Canadian citizens who (are alleged to) have committed treason should be tried under to Canadian law, and there’s no reason to invent loopholes to avoid having to put someone on trial.

Maybe illegally revoking the citizenship of people we don’t like is a bad thing?

The sort of thing they want to do?

Pretty much. There’s a strong argument that “eliminating barriers” may be synonymous with “deregulation,” which…could go badly.

This was a decent explainer. In a nutshell…

• There are four categories of trade barriers in Canada: natural barriers such as geography, prohibitive barriers such as restrictions on the sale of alcohol, technical barriers such as vehicle weight standards and regulatory barriers such as licensing and paperwork requirements.

• The 2017 CFTA was intended to cut down on some of these barriers, but all provinces and territories negotiated exemptions for various reasons, ranging from different safety regulations across provinces, to different language requirements, to industry protectionism.

It’s not clear right now which barriers the feds can unilaterally eliminate (and whether we agree with all of them), but I guess we’ll find out within the next week or so.