Gundam is pretty successful.

The limitations that science fiction and fantasy works under are mostly a matter of the culture in which they're made rather than what's been done before in the genre. And this shows in the way that, for all the advances in gender, race and LBGT equality and visibility, there are also many ways in which things have gone backwards due to the change from social democracy to neoliberalism. For example, the best anti-war story of modern Who has got to be "Boom". This is firmly against arms manufacturers creating AI-powered endless fake wars for profit. Which is certainly a good thing to be against. But it hardly compares with the 60s story "The War Games" in which the solution is for the soldiers of both sides to join forces and rebel against their commanders, who are actually aliens hiding behind symbols of national authority with more in common with each other than the troops they command, literally moving their troops around on the same board as if playing a board game. It's hard to imagine the heroes of today simply dealing with a problem by stirring up a strike, or describing a passport as "official mumbo-jumbo".

1960s "woke" was a word which was only used in black culture. I think it meant something along the lines of watching out for people who profess to support black liberation but are actually working to undermine it, but I'm not a black person so I may be a little bit off there. 2020s 'woke' is a word which has been thoroughly misappropriated from them, as part of a campaign which has amongst its goals, putting those uppity black people back in their proper place i.e. not on television.

If you see a show which is completely creatively lifeless but does have an excellent diversity of races, sexualities etc. then complain about it being completely creatively lifeless. The diversity in such a show will be the one good thing about it, don't make a complaint which sounds like it's that one good thing which you don't like. To do so is to support the far right, regardless of whether you were intending to do that. If you see "woke" as a term of criticism, then you need to remove that word from your vocabulary, because the fir-right have inserted it into segments of popular culture for a reason.

For example, here's is how I would complain about the Chibnall era of Doctor Who, with its female Doctor, first Asian companion, stories in parts of the world which never get on television, Rosa Parks story etc: "Chibnall clearly wants to be writing cop shows and has no idea how to write science fiction or fantasy. His stories are just sequences of events, failing at the most basic level of aboutness. What's more, the admirable diversity of casting and new talent found behind the cameras is a progressive coating for a deeply conservative heart. The first woman Doctor is repeatedly written as ineffectual to irrelevant, culminating in a big ending where she spends most of her time imprisoned so a man can explain the new backstory to her. No longer someone who might bring an empire down, her mission statement of "bringing fair play to the universe", delivered to a foe whose cheating is apparently worse than his murdering, forecloses on any idea that maybe structures of oppression are fundamentally illegitimate and should be torn down which until now has been one of the basic assumptions of the programme. The nadir of the approach comes when in the space Amazon story, she concludes 'the system is not the problem'. The real problem, apparently, is violence from the left."

The thing is, if people you're interested in listening to are continuing to use these networks, you've got to use them too to hear those people.

Science fiction on British television had already done Quatermass and early Doctor Who, mind you.

Well, somewhat. Having a protagonist who sits at the top of a military command structure over the rest of the main characters and so can give them all orders which may potentially be enforced by military discipline makes it insufficiently progressive for me.

It might be good eventually, but we need some fundamental breakthrough in artificial intelligence first, since we currently have no idea how to make computers understand storytelling, and that's certainly not going to happen before the LLM bubble bursts, since nobody is looking for fundamental breakthroughs in artificial intelligence at the moment.

The last time on Slashdot when OpenAI saying insane things to pump more air into the bubble was amplified was only 12 stories ago.

Why should people who use those features get screwed just by upgrading to the latest version? The great disease in software of the past 15 years or so has been taking things which work and are finished, and continuing to change them until they no longer work. Sounds like another instance of that.

There's nothing improper about geographical features having different names in different countries and this being represented on the map. There is something improper about defining the "USA" name according to the whims of a petulant child. The should probably have some minimum duration of common usage or something like that.

For four years, perhaps. Maybe even eight. But the Democrats are committed to not changing any of the things which put the USA one bad election away from something like this. You need far greater change if you want to escape Trump-alikes.

The thing is, Linux is a general purpose kernel rather than something only ever used to run servers with, so the kernel folks can't predict everyone's security model and so have to report anything which allows more to be done with any set of privileges than should be possible, whatever it is. What's really needed here is a secondary classification stage, something like a project which makes a set of assumptions about the security model which are true in most servers and you can check are true for your servers, which goes through all the CVEs and marks them either "still relevant" or "not relevant".

"Money" in more ways than one. Certainly having money helps a lot. But there's also a massive element of self-selection. People with a solid connection to and understanding of reality will understand that being a billionaire isn't very fair. They might not understand things like the huge amounts of structural violence necessary for it, but they will at least understand that there's something seriously wrong with some people having more money than you need to be spending in a thousand lifetimes, whilst billions of people struggle in poverty. These people will stop prioritising self-enrichment long before they become billionaires. It's only the bastard type who become billionaires in the first place.

"Vandalism" is just a type of destruction, as I understand it. And tipping over shelves isn't just going to lead to a need to pick them up again and put stuff back on them, plenty of things are going to break. And leak their contents all over the floor, in some aisles.

That's a destructive crime, not a violent crime. "Violence" is when you target other people. "Destruction" for property. In this case, destruction with provocation.

Still not a very clever way to react, of course.