As a fan of mysteries, my mind tends to clasp onto details that writers felt important enough to mention, but had no bearing on the plot up to this point.

The fact that the ship Tendi recovered was a “medical frigate” triggered such an alarm in my head. Yes the ship was able to gas the Blue Orions, but that’s hardly a feature unique to medical ships.

We Know:

• Tendi wants to come back to help raise her niece.
• Tendi wants to be a captain
• The finale is going to have some tear jerking moments
• This is the last season.

I think we’re being prepped for the main cast to go their separate ways, not unlike the DS9 finale.

We’ve had some foreshadowing with Freeman and Starbase 80. I wonder if the finale might end with her being posted there, as an admiral. Fix it up, that sort of thing, rather than an exile.

I really want the S5 set, and the S1 poster.

Not really sold on a full set at the moment.

Cerritos?

Protostar?

La Sirena?

If we go by the gap between Strange New Worlds beginning filming, and S1’s release, we could see Academy around November of next year.

Not impossible. Freeman was effectively the villain for S1 of Lower Decks, despite clearly being one of the good guys.

And Prodigy demonstrates how a personal vendetta can net some kids a nemesis, despite largely minding their own business.

A lot of good first steps, but this shouldn’t be owned by a private company.

They’re all beautiful shots, but something about them doesn’t leave me curious about their contexts. I wish I could articulate it better….

Like maybe it’s not enough of a tease?

Or maybe that you could’ve told me most of those shots were from S4 and I wouldn’t question it?

Or the lack of a contextual caption maybe?

I would recommend two pins.

One being the season one you’re proposing… and a second for a focal episode to discuss and cycle it out every two days.

So for the first two days we’d focus on the first episode (episodes? It’s a two parter) then the pin would be swapped with the next episode.

This would allow more in depth discussion while acknowledging binge watching.

To be fair, I’m really just judging the EC’s article writer. Not the trustworthiness of EC or the study itself.

When I saw the headline, I thought this was clickbait, since the headline and the linked article avoided quantifying how much CO2 the vehicles said they consumed vs the real world usage.

If you dig into the cited materials, it turns out it wasn’t hyperbole.

That said, I still consider it extremely poor form to omit the information the study was centering its argument around.