• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    don’t get me started on how stupid an engineer would have to be to name a device that fabricates stuff, but not itself a “replicators”

    The Chevron 7 people will love to hear that rant. But I imagine the name is because you put something in a dematerializer somewhere, and then the machine can make endless replicas of the original object.

    They don’t have to replicate themselves to gain that name, it’s equally applicable to a machine that replicates anything.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      But that’s not what they’re doing. Whenever Troi asks for a scoop of chocolate ice cream, there isn’t some ship gremlin pulling the Sundae out of storage and duplicating it every time.

      Sure, they could easily get the design file (“pattern”,) by stuffing it in a replicator and reversing the process…. But there’s really no reason that’s necessary unless you really wanted a copy of the Mona Lisa or some bit of tech you didn’t really understand.

      Once you have the pattern, and they could use any number of workflows to get it- “computer, design me a stuffy to look like that character in the holonovel that kid loves” or through a proper design flow in the holodeck.

      (Actually… one has to wonder, why they didn’t design shuttles to be replicated. They blew up enough of them…)

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, we don’t get to see the patterns being created. When we see replicators they were supposed to be standard appliances for decades.

        But they were mainly aimed at food, and people don’t design food in a CAD.