I’m frequently of when Albuquerque tried to switch to electric busses several years ago now.

The city ordered a bunch from BYD. The first testing units failed miserably. They wouldn’t last a whole shift, doors wouldn’t open, or open when they shouldn’t (while moving), there were a number of problems. After a month or so of testing and trying to work with BYD, they gave up on the order and went with some kind of ethanol busses instead.

That was a bunch of years ago now. I wonder if they’re any better.

That’s how imagination works. You can imagine something having nothing to do with reality.
Maybe I don’t understand the question.

They’re preemptive, CYA kinds of laws.
Like the law against whale hunting in Utah.

Why the limit of 3.5 tons?

How many times have you been upset at a male being cast for their appearance? I mentionned before nearly all actors in US media have been cast for their attractiveness.

Do you rail against the unrealistic body standards of male superheros in comic books, the same way you would women?

Be honest, nobody does.

Sex and gender are two different things. It wouldn’t be related.

Ok.
It’s hard to see one’s own bias.

Literally everything you’ve mentioned was about her looks, and how they were the basis for her being put on the show. You’ve mentioned nothing about the characters actions, choices, relationships with other crewmembers, or Jeri Ryan’s performance.

I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

Exactly. Your conflating the character, with its creation. Your calling her bad not for who the character is or who she became, but solely for the process that created her based on looks. You’re implying or assuming, a good character couldn’t come from a bad process.

Attacking a character for their character is fine.
Attacking produces being driven by sexism is fine.
Attacking a character because they were created by sexist producers, is sexist.
Attack the creation process, sure. But judge the character on the character.

You just attacked Harry Kim as a bad character. That’s fine. It would be nice if you were more specific, but it’s not important.
Your critique of 7 have been all about her appearance. (Comming up more substantive criticism of 7 now, would only seem a justification after the fact. I wouldn’t recommend it.)

Another argument is: In US entertainment, nearly everyone is cast largely because of how attractive they are or aren’t. Even the “uguly people” in movies, are usually just kind of average looking. Singeling out the “sexy one” for being cast by their appearance is sexist.

Seeing a character as nothing more than her body is sexist.

It’s sexist to create and cast the character for it.
It’s sexist to dislike the character for it.

In both cases you’re judging a character/person solely by their appearance.

You’re still judgeing the quality of the story by your morality.
It’s common for terrible acts to go unpunished. There are lots of movies and shows where the bad guy wins. Many where you can’t even tell who the bad guy is. But they’re still good stories.

Just link directly to the audio file?
This seems like too obvious an answer though. Maybe I’m not sure what you’re asking.

The hologram was the only doctor on the show.
And the only character actually named The Doctor. Note the capitalization use.

And thinking the show went bad because a sexy actor was brought on to up the sexiness, is sexist.
Unless you didn’t like her evolution as a character, or thought she was a bad actor. Those would just be bad takes, not actually sexist.

You can see how that seems sexist, right?
Especially when 7 and The Doctor are debatably tied, for most interesting character on the show.

I’m not sure what the problem is.
Does it make Archer a bad character, or Enterprise a bad show, when he breaks bad for understandable reasons?

It’s both.
Which isn’t a bad thing if you view this as a global society with a global problem to solve.
In 500 years it won’t matter who gets credit.

If it does matter to you, you still have 10 years to get it done. So get started.

It’s a gamble. A literal bet.
The customer is betting they’ll need it. The retailer is betting they won’t. And the retailer sets the price to ensure the odds are on their side.

I don’t gamble at casinos for the same reason.

Fair enough. That’s true.
But I stand by extra warranties being a scam.

Never buy extended warranties. They’re practically a scam.
EVs have an order of magnitude fewer moving parts to break.