I’m crying too.
The same disinformation campaigns that epitomize the divisions in US
society – beliefs in voter fraud, vaccine conspiracies, and racist
conspiracies about migrants, George Soros and Black Lives Matter, to
name a few – are a source of strength for autocracies like Russia,
where the lack of a consensus on which groups and views are real and
which are manufactured by the state strengthens the hand of Putin and
his clutch of oligarchs.
In a new Harvard Berkman Center paper, Common
-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy, political scientist Henry Farrell (previously and security expert Bruce Schneier (previously)
team up to explore this subject by using information security
techniques, and come to a very plausible-seeming explanation and a set
of policy recommendations to address the issue.
Farrell and Schneier start by exploring the failures of both national
security and information security paradigms to come to grips with the
issue: Cold War-style national security is oriented around Cold War
ideas like “offense–defense balance, conventional deterrence theory, and
deterrence by denial,” none of which are very useful for thinking about
disinformation attacks; meanwhile, information security limits itself
to thinking about “servers and individual networks” and not “the
consequences of attacks for the broader fabric of democratic societies.”
Despite these limits, the authors say that there is a way to use the
tools of information security to unpick these kinds of “information
attacks” on democracies: treat “the entire polity as an information
system with associated attack surfaces and threat models” – that is, to
think about the democracy itself as the thing to be defended, rather
than networks or computers.
From there, they revisit the different disinformation styles of various
autocracies and autocratic movements, particularly the Russian style of
sowing doubt about what truth is and where it can be found (infamously,
Russia’s leading political strategist admits that he secretly funds some
opposition groups, but won’t say which ones, leaving everyone to wonder
whether a given group is genuine or manufactured – there’s some excellent scholarship
contrasting this with the style used by the Chinese state and also with
techniques used by authoritarian insurgents inside of democracies, like
In the paper’s framework, the stability of autocrats’ power requires
that the public not know how other people feel – for there to be
constant confusion about which institutions, groups and views are
genuine and which ones are conspiracies, frauds, or power-grabs. Once
members of the public discover how many of their neighbors agree that
the ruling autocracy is garbage, they are emboldened to rise up against
it. Tunisia’s dictatorship was stable so long as the law banning dissent
could be enforced, but the lack of enforcement on Facebook allowed
Tunisians to gain insight into their neighbors’ discontent, leading to
the collapse of the regime.
By contrast, democracies rely on good knowledge about the views of other
people, most notably embodied by things like free and fair elections,
where citizens get a sense of their neighbors’ views, and are thus
motivated to find solutions that they know will be widely viewed as
legitimate and will therefore be sustainable.
So when information attacks against democracies sow doubt about the
genuineness of movements and views – when Soros is accused of funding
left-wing movements, when Koch Industries’ name is all over the funding
sources of right-wing think-tanks, when politicians depend on big money,
and when Facebook ads and its engagement algorithm pushes people to
hoaxes and conspiracies – it weakens democracy in exactly the same way
that it strengthens autocracy. Without a sense of which political views
are genuine and which are disinformation, all debate degenerates into
people calling each other shills or bots, and never arriving at
compromises with the stamp of broad legitimacy.
It’s not a coincidence that the right’s political playbook is so
intertwined with this kind of disinformation and weakening of democracy.
A widely held belief on the political right is that the most important
“freedom” is private property rights, and since rich people are always
outnumbered by poor people, subscribers to this ideology hold that
“freedom is incompatible with democracy,” because in a fair vote, the
majority 99% will vote to redistribute the fortunes of the minority 1%.
In this conception, the rich are the only “oppressed minority” who can’t
be defended by democracy.
This gives rise to the right’s belief in natural hierarchies, which are
sorted out by markets, with the best people rising to the top (Boris Johnson:
“As many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while about
2 per cent have an IQ above 130. The harder you shake the pack, the
easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top.”).
The right’s position, fundamentally, is that the “best” people should
boss everyone else around for their own good: kings should boss around
commoners (monarchists); slavers should boss around enslaved people
(white nationalists); husbands should boss around wives and kids
(Dominionists); America should boss around the world (imperialists); and
rich people should boss around workers (capitalists).
So when Reagan started cracking wise about “The nine most terrifying
words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here
to help,’” he was kicking off a long project to discredit the US and
its institutions in favor of autocrats, the mythological heroes of Ayn
Rand novels whose singular vision was so true and right that it didn’t
need peer review, checks and balances, or anyone who might speak truth
to power. He was initiating the process that led the Trump
administration’s army of think-tankies to dismantle the US government’s multibillion-dollar institutions
charged with defending us from food poisoning, plutonium spills, unsafe
workplaces, tornadoes and starvation: in the autocrat’s view of the
world, these institutions’ word cannot be taken at face value, because
every institution is just a pawn for its bosses’ and workers’ personal
ambitions, featherbedding and pocket-lining.
Unsurprisingly then, Farrell and Schneier’s recommended countermeasures
for disinformation campaigns cut directly against the right’s most
cherished policies: get rid of Citizens United and the idea that secret
money can fund US political campaigns; limit financial secrecy and make
it harder for anyone to claim that US political movements are the
inauthentic expression of manipulative foreign disinformation campaigns.
Alongside financial transparency, the authors suggest that vigorous
antitrust enforcement, possibly with reclassification of online services
as public utilities, would help curb the deployment of ranking
algorithms that elevate “engagement” over all else, leading to spirals
that drive users to ever-more-extreme and unfounded views and
communities (weirdly, this is the one highly selective instance in which
the right is calling for a return to pre-Reagan antitrust fundamentals).
Worryingly Asbetos is being made into homepoathic wands and reki stones. Most worryingly claiming to cure CANCER, which Asbestos causes.
Being sold to many people under the intentions of “bring a bonding action between one and the subject of one’s desires“ and claiming that it’s the “etheric blueprint to correct imbalances and blockages that could manifest as physical disease and to heal cellular memory, one of the best stones for rousing the kundalini energies“
Chrysotile a type of Asbestos is quickly becoming one of the most requested minerals in reiki and crystal healing.
And it’s not the only type of Asbestos being sold as a healing crystal.
Above is Richterite, it’s known to be as dangerous as any of the other Asbestos in the six categories and is being sold to people promising ironic cures for liver, pancreas, kidney or breast cancer.
Above is Tigers Eye, everyone knows it looks cool but it is also Asbestos and although polished Health Protection Agency in the U.K., claim these are still dangerous.
While some types of asbestos may be more hazardous than others, all are dangerous. Leading health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classify all types of asbestos as cancer-causing substances.
The following are all a type of asbestos:
chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, winchite, suglite, richterite, actinolite and anthophyllite.
All the identified forms of asbestos can cause asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, laryngeal cancer and other serious diseases and will not cure any form of cancer.
Some agencies, such as the Health Protection Agency in the U.K., claim amphibole varieties of asbestos are the most dangerous forms.
The EPA has abandoned projects aiming to identify which asbestos fiber types are the most toxic, citing the overall regulation of asbestos and asbestiform minerals as a more pressing priority.
EXCUSE ME WTF
Literally my reaction too, for just $20 you can pay to have a lump of raw asbestos shipped to you to cure you of various forms of cancer.
Peeps, if you didn’t know, asbestos is MINED. It’s a MINERAL that – like arsenic, yes, arsenic is mined too – many producers continued to mine despite knowing that ‘asbestos lung’ was a thing among their workers since basically the start. A great many mined substances can be harmful to you. Just because it comes out of the earth doesn’t mean you can safely hold it in your hand or have it in your home. Be aware!
Well said and thank you for reblogging and adding your comments 😀
Didn’t know Tiger’s Eye was a form of asbestos…
Many people don’t. Tigers Eye is formed when crocidolite asbestos is replaced by quartz fibers, because it’s still asbestos based I’d not recommend smashing your tigers eye any time soon. But I will add it isn’t directly asbestos once the quartz replaces.
You can see the fibers on this piece of unpolished Tigers Eye below and why it’s still classed under asbestos.
Asbestiform is a mineralogical term referring to minerals that can be separated into fibers. Many regulatory definitions define a 3:1 length-to-width ratio as a fiber. The EPA states that all Asbestiform is as dangerous.
Ok I was curious about this and wanted to know if this was true. While I have not learned much about chrysotile or tigers eye, I learned a bit about serpentine, the group chrysotile belongs to. And the short answer I have come to is: serpentine is probably not dangerous to your health unless you inhale the asbestos fibers in it.
See, the biggest danger from asbestos is inhaling the crystal fibers, but this happens when the rocks are broken or eroded. So a polished stone or intact rock probably won’t hurt you unless you smash it with a hammer.
That being said, if you are still worried about the asbestos, perhaps limit your contact with asbestos-filled rocks. Educating yourself about the chemical composition of your minerals and stones is important, especially since many of them contain other nasty compounds.
why do people keep thinking snorting and
wheezing pugs and bulldogs are cute??? brachycephalic dogs have trouble breathing because of unnecessarily short muzzles and stenotic nares, it’s not cute it’s terrifying, and it needs to change for the good of the dogs.
Okay LETS TALK BOUT THIS OKAY
Yall tryna be all saints out here tryna care about every little FUCKIN problems. The reason they have those problems is because of genetics. There is really no way to fix it unless you make a time machine and tell your ancestors to not breed them into existence. I’m sorry “the good of dogs?” WHAT is you TALKIN BOUT CHILD.
First of all, saying that there’s no way is ignorant because there IS a way to fix it, if only people knew about it publicly and breed clubs embraced it.
These are called Retro Mops (website here), and they’re pugs bred specifically to be longer-legged, leaner, with smaller eyes, longer muzzles, and more open nostrils. And while the project is still a work in progress, it’s heading in the right direction.
This new breed type started in Germany, and developed from the selective breeding of purebred pugs with longer muzzles and a longer legged frame.
From the website:
“We want to prove that a pug does not have to be short of breath and phlegmatic, but a very sporty and docile family and companion dog”
And there’s also the Old English Bulldog, which is a muscular and athletic bulldog that can actually clean itself, mate, and give birth on its own (something that mainstream Bulldogs cannot do)
This should be the goal of EVERY pug breeder and owner, to have a healthy dog that doesn’t struggle to breathe and walk.
I’m sure you’re a pug or bulldog lover, which is why you’re so eager to defend them, but you’re not helping these dogs out by ignoring the problems in the breed. This is not a “little problem”, it’s a HUGE issue that’s killing dogs, and it’s prefectly preventable if pugs were outcrossed to have longer muzzles and wider nostrils.
Just look at the difference and tell me you’re not horrified:
As long as people stay blind to these issues, nothing will change. Which is why I’m saying this here so at least some people will see that there IS an alternative, and that wheezing pugs and bulldogs are not cute. When the public realizes the difference, the demand for these mutants will stop and more healthy, longer-lived alternatives will replace them.
But it starts with someone talking about them, and not just thinking there’s nothing to be done. Although if there were a time machine at my disposal you bet I’d use to pinch the nostrils of the original Victorian breeders and see how they like it.
also re: taking a time machine and telling our ancestors not to breed pugs
the thing is, our ancestors actually bred dogs pretty sensibly. because, you know, dogs used to do things, and specific breeds fulfilled certain purposes like hunting, ratting, herding, etc. dogs had to be healthy enough to run, breathe, eat, breed, and take care of themselves. it’s only in the last 100 years that selective breeding has started actively degrading the quality of life and health of purebreed dogs because we’re breeding according to some fictitious image of what the breed “should look like” that is 100% in stark contrast to reality
if you look at historic pictures and paintings of what these breeds were like, you find something pretty different
oh hey! what are these reasonably proportioned, non-brachycephalic dogs? pugs. actual pugs.
and these beauties? bulldogs. bulldogs that can breed on their own.
even when you get into modern “working class” breeds which you think wouldn’t be bred just for looks, you find the same thing happening, and it has horrible, painful consequences for the dogs.
modern german shepherd: back legs are bred to be shorter than the front, the opposite of natural dog skeletal structure which causes hip dysplasia
here’s a picture of a german shepherd from the turn of the century, which was considered the breed standard i.e. what german shepherds are supposed to look like
natural, functional skeleton and gait.
i have several other examples off the top of my head: king charles spaniels bred to have seizures, rhodesian ridgebacks bred to have misaligned spines, all manner of brachycephalic dogs that can’t breathe, corgis and dachsunds whose backs give out on them because their bodies are too long – i could go on but i think y’all get the point.
black and asian vikings 100% definitely existed (also, saami vikings)
you know how far you can get into eurasia and africa by sailing up rivers from the baltic and mediterranean seas? pretty fucking far, and that’s what vikings liked to do to trade
then, you know, people are people, so love happens, business happens, and so ppl get married and take spouses back home to the frozen hellscape that is scandinavia (upon which i’m guessing the horrorstruck new spouses went “WHAT THE FUCK??? FUCKING GIVE ME YOUR JACKET???????”)
and sometimes vikings bought thralls and brought them home as well, and i mean, when your indentured service is up after however many years and you’re a free person again, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe it’s a bit hard to get all the way home across the continent, so you make the best out of the situation and you probably get married and raise a gaggle kids
viking kingdoms/communities were not uniformly pure white aryan fantasy paradises, so pls stop using my cultural history and ethnic background to excuse your racist discomfort with black ppl playing heimdall and valkyrie
Also we KNOW they got to Asia and Africa.
Because Asians, Africans, and Vikings TOLD US SO.
Also, we know there was significant mercantile trade between Scandinavia and parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern India, Kashmir, North and Eastern Africa because there is evidence in burial sites.
Check that out: the goods Vikings and Scandinavians were getting from their trade with the rest of the world was so important they buried themselves with it, as part of their treasure hordes.
We KNOW this.
There’s a reason you can still see many of the trade routes from the ancient world etched into the very earth.
Plus, we know that some Scandinavian cultures that participated in Viking raids had established minority communities of ethnically Mongolian folks living among them during the periods when such raids were common, and it’s difficult to credit that none of them would have signed on.
More about the Islamic World and Vikings (some Vikings converted to Islam! sort of sketchy site tho)
… is that enough? 🙂
Yet another on the pile of reasons why it monumentally honks me off when pusillanimous, pseudointellectual white supremacist scum try to use Scandinavian culture as a crutch for their arguments and act like Norse mythology agrees with their biases. No it fucking doesn’t, bitch. Odin would personally kick you in the dick for being a witless coward and then send your ass to the Realm of the Dishonored Dead.
I don’t usually reblog stuff, but this thread makes me so happy.
See, I love the Viking aesthetic – I love the fusion of organic and
geometric in its designs, I love the natural colors, the complexity of
textures you get from juxtaposing metal/leather/cloth/fur–
–and I hate how
the entire subculture has been so thoroughly co-opted by white
supremacists. To the point where I, a person who likes viking stuff, am
deeply and immediately suspect of anyone else who likes viking stuff, guilty until proven innocent, cuz that’s what the odds are these days.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone can be a viking, and thus I am so, so pleased to find that the historical record backs me up.
(And amused that Arab intellectual Ahmad ibn Fadlan was so thirsty for vikings.)
I’m gonna go ahead and be a film snob and talk about why this is one of my favorite shots from TOS. (I could also say that it’s one of my favorite scenes, because the entire scene actually consists of a single shot.)
We don’t see a lot of bald expressions of emotion in film and television, especially if that emotion is fear or sadness or vulnerability. Dramas will give us some tears, but they always cut a way after a few seconds because a closeup of someone crying is deeply uncomfortable and most movies and TV shows aren’t in the business of making their audiences uncomfortable. It just doesn’t sell well.
But in this scene the camera never looks away. It follows Spock as he sits down at the table, and it circles him as he cries. But there are no cuts. We don’t even get music to create some distance, make it all a little more palatable; we just hear sobs and mumbled math equations.
It’s absolutely excrutiating. It would be excruciating no matter who we were watching, because we are so unaccustomed to seeing unadulterated emotion. And then there’s the fact that it’s a man. And that it’s Spock.
Fifty years later and this is still one of the most daring filmmaking decisions I’ve ever seen on TV (I of course can’t be exactly sure who made it, but I’m assuming it was the director of the episode, Marc Daniels). This shot lasts 1 minute and 45 seconds. We’re in the middle of space and in the middle of a high-stakes episode where the crew is going crazy and the ship is going to blow up or some shit and everyone’s lives are in danger, but we pause 1 minute and 45 seconds to have an uncomfortably human moment with an alien who doesn’t even want to be human, and it’s so awful and amazing.
#this is one of the things that makes me love TOS infinitely more than AOS #because when AOS wants to show that Spock is a deeply emotional being #they make him angry #angry and violent #macho bullshit that doesnt even come close to the raw vulnerability #of Spock sobbing to himself because he never told his mother he loved her #and that was a spock whose mother was still alive!! #it is so much more meaningful to show spock weep than to show him angry #and the thing is #in this episode the virus is supposed to strip them down to their core #and at his core spock is not angry or violent #spock is a terribly vulnerable man #lost and unsure and feeling so strongly and loving so deeply that it moves him to tears THESE TAGS HOLY SHIT @galaxydorks
Here is an excerpt from Bill’s Star Trek Memories.
As originally scripted, the scene would have begun with Spock walking down a corridor openly sobbing. At that point, we’d cut away and find that another infected crewman has begun frantically running around the ship, slapping graffiti paint jobs all over the walls of the Enterprise. In subsequent shots, we’d find several more crewmen beginning to lose their inhibitions, and just when the pandemonium is beginning to overwhelm the ship, we’d come back to Spock.
Spock is now riding in an elevator, crying. He gets to his floor, and when the doors open, the graffiti guy runs up and paints a big black mustache on Spock’s face. At that point, Spock cries even louder. Leonard continues:
Now, that’s very imaginative, very inventive, very theatrical and very funny, but I felt that it was not really significant or appropriate for Spock. I mean, Spock was crying… but so what? There was no context for it, no discernible root force, no underlying cause for what’s going on. You know, in a strange way, this one-shot extra who’s walking around doing the paint jobs all over the place is a lot more interesting than Spock, who’s weeping. It seemed to me like we were wasting some really strong dramatic possibilities, all for the sake of an easy sight gag.
So I said all of this to John Black, and I also said that what I felt we really need to do her was a scene in which Spock’s basic inner conflict, the human versus the Vulcan, rises to the surface and motivates his tears. I mean this draft of the script found Spock fighting through all this emotion in public, and I felt that would be a terrible thing for Spock, because he’s a very private person.
So I said to John, “I think Spock would look for privacy when he feels the urge to cry. When he can no longer resist his tears, he would probably look for a private place in which to battle it out within himself.”
And John’s reaction was very negative. It was typical producer/writer-under-pressure kind of stuff. “C’mon, leave it alone because I’m working on next week’s script. Shoot it, just shoot it.” This kind of thing. And he complained about hurting the rhythm of the script.”
I’ve got to break into Leonard’s story here to explain that “it hurts the rhythm of the script” is a sort of basic, all-purpose producer’s excuse that’s fed all too often to actors seeking script changes. Good, bad, legitimate, frivolous, it doesn’t matter. If a producer doesn’t want to deal with your suggestions, he’ll probably just tell you that what you’re suggesting “hurts the rhythm of the script.” It’s the TV producer’s equivalent of “the dog ate my homework,” or “the check is in the mail.” It’s just an easy, somewhat plausible excuse that generally has no basis in reality. With that in mind, Leonard’s determination and fiercely protective nature in regard to Spock drove him over Black’s head to Roddenberry.
I called Gene about it, and I told him just what I’d told John. In talking to Gene, I was very careful to be politically supportive of his producer but about an hour and a half later, here comes John Black out to the set. So now I’m feeling, “Ahh, this great!” I’m feeling that someone’s actually listening to me.
And Black was funny, he cam onto the set and said, “Let’s go talk someplace.” We went to my dressing room, and he said, “Okay, tell me your idea again. Daddy says I have to listen to you.” And I had already formulated a basic concept of the scene, so I said, “Look, John, just get me into a room, and write me a half-page, a quarter-page, where you see Spock walk down a corridor and slip inside a door. As the doors close behind him, he’ll burst into this emotional struggle.” And John asked, “Well, what’s this struggle all about?” And I said, “It’s about love and vulnerability and caring and loss and regret, versus C=pi-r-squared and E=m-C-squared. Spock is a scientist, he is logical, and he feels this can’t be happening to him. It’s that kind of struggle. It’s logic versus emotion. It’s rational control versus uncontrollable urge. With that in mind, going behind closed doors will speak to the basic privacy of the character.”
So John wrote that and some other stuff, six or eight lines maybe, and it was exactly what I needed. Spock was now able to slip inside a door, close it behind him, struggle for a moment, then cry. At this point, he would start babbling, and the cause of the internal struggling would become obvious. Problem was, when it came time to shoot this stuff, a whole new set of obstacles had to be overcome.
Marc Daniels, who was directing this particular episode, came up and asked, “What do you have in mind for this scene?” So, playing director, I said, “Just put the camera here, behind the desk. I’ll come in the door, I’ll walk toward you, I’ll come around, I’ll sit in the chair, and I’ll start this babbling conversation with myself, and I’ll cry. Now, if you’ll dolly around getting closer and closer we can meet at the end of the scene. We can see Spock’s entire breakdown in one long dramatic shot.”
Okay, now it’s five-thirty, I got out to get my ears and makeup touched up, and the time is important because we’re on a very rigid schedule. With overtime being so ridiculously and prohibitively expensive, we’d have to wrap each evening at exactly six-eighteen. Didn’t matter if you were in the middle of a sentence, come six-eighteen, we wrapped.
So now Jerry Finnerman starts to light the scene and it’s obvious that this will be our last shot of the day. I’m in the makeup chair, getting touched up, and now in comes Cliff Ralke, our dolly grip, who was always a very supportive person, and he says, “Excuse me, Leonard, but you’d better get out there, because they’re changing the shot you guys just talked about.”
So now Leonard comes out to the set, and the director has indeed changed the shot they’d just agreed upon. It’s important to note, however, that the reasoning behind this change, though not particularly sensitive to Leonard’s needs, was rational and perfectly valid. You see, as previously discussed, this shot would have entailed a one-hundred-and-eighty degree camera move starting from one side of the set, then slowly dollying completely around to the opposite end. This caused problems because the long, involved shot required a lot of lights and a time-consuming, involved setup that Jerry Finnerman didn’t think could be accomplished without going into overtime. Finnerman discussed this situation with Daniels, and together they decided that the most efficient way to shoot this scene would be in a series of brief cuts, each of which could be lit quickly and with relative ease.
They were going to have Leonard enter in a wide shot, then cut. Next, in a slightly tighter framing, they’d follow him as he crossed the set and sat down. Cut. An even tighter frame would catch the beginning of the speech, and they planned to cut once more, zooming to a close-up as Spock began weeping. This made sense in terms of production efficiency, but Leonard felt this shooting sequence would really damage the dramatic impact of the scene. He continues:
I said, “You’re going to lose the continuity and fluidity of the scene if you shoot it this way. I will not be able to do it as well, and I think the end result will just seem choppy and phony.”
By now it’s five forty-five, and with no time to debate the situation, they got hold Gregg Peters, our first A.D., who was the equivalent of the hatchet man. He was the guy who’d always call the six-eighteen wrap, and we all discussed the situation. Finally Marc Daniels said, “Let’s go for it. Let’s try to get it done.”
Now the lighting crew ran around setting up the shot, and I think it was about six-fifteen when they finally said, “We’re ready.” Marc had me walk through it once, and by now production types were standing around behind the camera, looking at their watches and saying, “He won’t make it. He’ll never do it.” So the tension was really mounting.
So basically I know this has got to be a flawless, one-take thing. Y’know, I’ve got one crack at it before they shut us down for the night. If I were to screw up, we’d almost certainly have gone right back to the cut-and-chop scenario come morning. Anyway, this was the scene that I’d asked for and fought for, and now the logistics of the situation were such that there was absolutely no room for error. There was a lot riding on this, and I wouldn’t have been so adamant in my battling if I hadn’t felt that this scene was extremely important. I felt like it merited my efforts, in that it truly defined, for the very first time, what the Spock character was all about.
Now the lights go on, the cameras roll and we nail it. They get the pan, get the one-hundred-and-eighty-degree dolly shot and the scene was ultimately worked really well in illustrating Spock’s inherent inner conflict. This went directly to the heart of what Gene and I had originally spoken about in regard to the character of Spock. It was an opportunity that I absolutely did not want to miss, and an opportunity to plant a seed in defining a certain edge of the character.
ONE FUCKING TAKE
I love the existence of this post because it means all the work Nimoy put into the scene was worth it