I'm not defending negative nellies - but its is possible to enjoy something and still criticise it. You've attacked me in the past for having a minor criticism. I'm not going to block you over it, I just think twice about whether I want the hassle, but maybe that's just me

pretty much a 3rd of my steam library...

If I had to pick one, maybe Kerbal Space Program

My private tracker has multiple transmission versions on their approved list 🤷‍♂️

Both of us can do backflips to justify our positions. I also acknowledged that it's fiction and it can be whatever it wants to be. I dont claim to know everything.

It doesn't change the fact they brought on people specifically to do a better job of these things, so that backflips are less required 🤷‍♂️

I am going to shift the window on what I meant a little - star trek uses its technology as a plot contrivance all the fucking time, every series is guilty of it. Tech can be a hindrance to the protagonist or be stupidly overridden depending on what the plot needs. Most of the series are good at making the tech at least make sense in the world.

Take the breath sensor in s1e03 - as a security device its there to just be beaten, which is stupid - but also in star trek world with scanners and tricorders it makes no sense. The main computer could scan you at the door and know who you are without breathing on something. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. To new fans its not a problem, but have you met a Star Trek fan before?

Once they brought people on that actually can beat the technology needs into shape for the world, this new era of trek has been fine IMHO. None of it is story breaking, and its frivolous because yes, this is fiction and the world can be whatever it wants for scifi reasons. This was the first example I found quickly scrolling transcripts. There's others like the SQL line in season 2.

I'll be sure to take notes next time I do a rewatch

There is nothing technochron blorbinator in the Trek lexicon - I'm saying that writing example technobabble like that shows a lack of understanding of the source.

I don't have any specific examples, but I remember the first 2 seasons of discovery and a little in the first season of Picard getting Trek particles wrong and not knowing systems. It got better once they hired Erin MacDonald and brought on David Mack and a few other novelists to consult on prodigy and I think Picard iirc

edit: Hey look I can play the edit game too - I provided a poorly researched example and explained that technology use not well used in early discovery - I acknowledged that being critical of technology use can be hand waived because its fictitious and apparently that's not good enough for our combative OP. I also provided sources on the franchise now using specialists to keep track of technology and technobabble, and advised that I am not a "nutrek hater" as our contentious colleague here had to go and attack me personally - check below for the receipts and tax returns!