Connect with us

Entertainment

Abused Fans Lash Out Over Review Bombing Accusations, Hit The Wrong Target

By Jennifer Asencio
| Published

An article about Starfleet Academy has faced backlash from fans who were misled by its headline. The drama caused by the headline is almost worthy of its own Star Trek show, especially with Alex Kurtzman at the helm. The piece was a response to recent statements made by a Star Trek insider about the state of the show and its fandom.

Last week, franchise veteran Christopher Cushman made a post on X in which he implied that negative reviews of Starfleet Academy were made by a coordinated effort to sabotage the show. He also threatened that “negative review bombing of Academy likely to end the possibility of shows like Legacy as well put Star Trek into 10-15 years hiatus [sic].” By thus indicating that criticisms of the show are being made in bad faith, his claim is that all fans will be punished with no Star Trek at all.

In a That Park Place article by Marvin Montanaro, titled “Star Trek Artist Warns Fans That ‘Review Bombing’ Starfleet Academy Could End the Franchise,” the site called Cushman’s bluff, making the counterclaim that maybe a hiatus wouldn’t be so bad. He pointed to the long break between the original series and The Next Generation as evidence that a hiatus can give a franchise time to refresh while avoiding the fatigue of too much content from a single universe. He also highlighted that the show’s viewership reflects these negative reviews, despite its acclaim from critics.

The backlash stemmed from the use of the term “review bombing” in the title. Although it is in “scare quotes,” suggesting that the article is skeptical of this claim, many Star Trek fans dissatisfied with Alex Kurtzman’s guidance of the franchise and this show in particular thought the article agreed that the show was being review-bombed.

Creators Declare War On Their Own Viewers, Fans Revolt

This couldn’t be further from the truth, but the reaction is understandable. Starfleet Academy is not the only property to have accused dissatisfied fans of artificially inflating a show’s bad reviews, rather than acknowledging that maybe viewers don’t like the show.

After taunting Star Wars fans that The Acolyte would “make them cry,” show creator Leslye Headland blamed sexism and homophobia for the show failing to draw audiences. This ignored criticisms of significant changes to franchise lore that diminished the struggles of established characters. The show was also criticized for what viewers felt was forced inclusivity and overpowered female characters.

Legitimate Examples Of Review Bombing

In 2019, a review-bombing war broke out between fans of Battle Angel: Alita and Captain Marvel. Fans who liked the anime movie better were accused of sexism and attempting to artificially deflate the Marvel movie.

There is even a current review bombing war taking place between fans of A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms and Breaking Bad. When Breaking Bad fans left bad reviews of an episode of the Game of Thrones spinoff, so many Westeros fans review-bombed the older show that its IMDB rating for its pinnacle episode, “Ozymandias,” was reduced from a perfect 10 to a 9.5. The episode had held that rating for over a decade.

Review Bombing Accusations Are Used To Shield Creators From The Consequences Of Their Actions

It’s not that fans can’t be petty and leave bad reviews, but the idea that modern shows that perform badly are not being watched because of bad-faith reviews is a way of dismissing criticism rather than admitting a property isn’t connecting with fans. It’s a lazy way of handwaving what fans want, becoming increasingly common as more shows become about “the message” and “representation” than about story or characters. Many video games, books, and even music albums have also used the tactic of blaming negative reviews on bigotry rather than on fan dissatisfaction.

Cushman himself stated that he’d rather ignore dissatisfied fans. He finished his two-post tweet on X with, “…if you don’t like it, don’t watch!” Apparently, fans are supposed to simply stay silent about what they don’t like about a show rather than offer feedback about franchises and properties they love.

Fans Misunderstood That Park Place

However, the knee-jerk reaction of long-abused fans got it wrong when it comes to That Park Place. The site was not supporting Cushman’s notions about review bombing and listed several other reasons the show hasn’t succeeded. The backlash they received was from people who believed otherwise and criticized the site’s X account for allegedly claiming that the negative reviews were made in bad faith. It was clear these naysayers hadn’t read the article and only judged it by its title.

This reaction is an example of how sensitive viewers have become since their criticisms of unpopular properties are dismissed by producers and showrunners. Slop eaters will always enthusiastically promote their favorite bad shows, and plenty of entertainment is being served to them by creators who want their easy money. But viewers who are tired of slop are being decried, so studios can continue developing the content they want, not what audiences want.

It’s no wonder people reacted badly to a headline that sounded like it supports this callous view. Most fans are not reviewing these shows in bad faith, as their viewing numbers demonstrate. It’s condescending to be told that if we don’t like something, it’s because of our moral character and not a lack of quality in the product.



source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

NASAs incredible new telescope will offer an atlas of the universe

NASA has completed its next space observatory, built to create sharp, panoramic maps of the universe while revealing how the most mysterious, invisible substances and distant worlds shape the cosmos.

About a quarter-century after the Hubble Telescope reshaped astronomy, and a few years into the era of the James Webb Space Telescope, NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will join them not as a replacement, but as a big-picture partner. Where Hubble and Webb zoom in for close‑ups, Roman will capture Hubble‑like detail across areas about 100 times larger, turning isolated snapshots into sweeping surveys that show the very scaffolding of the universe.

At NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, engineers are wrapping up prelaunch testing on the cutting-edge telescope. Next, the observatory will travel 900 miles to Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, where teams will prepare it for launch. 

That could happen as early as this September, about eight months ahead of schedule, NASA managers said at a news conference on Tuesday, April 21. Once in space, Roman will head to a stable orbit about 1 million miles from Earth, near the same region where Webb orbits the sun, and begin a years‑long campaign of deep space imaging. 

“We didn’t want to wait to launch the Nancy Grace Roman. We’re eight months ahead of schedule,” said Nicky Fox, NASA’s associate administrator of science. “Everybody felt the urgency. Everybody was sprinting towards this.”

Named for Nancy Grace Roman, who became the agency’s first chief of astronomy and one of its earliest female executives, the telescope reflects a legacy of opening new windows on the universe from above Earth’s atmosphere. Nicknamed the “mother of Hubble,” Roman helped lay the groundwork in the 1960s for a whole fleet of space telescopes.

A wide shot of the dark universe

At the heart of the mission is Roman’s eight-foot-wide mirror, the same size as Hubble’s, paired with a powerful camera that sees in infrared light, like Webb. That camera’s field of view is Roman’s superpower. In a single shot, it can image vast swaths of sky that Hubble simply can’t match. 

Because a space telescope can only see one patch of sky at a time, it has to take many separate “pointings” — individual shots aimed at slightly different spots — and stitch them together into a mosaic.

In 2023, Ami Choi, an astrophysicist and scientist for Roman’s wide field camera, contrasted the difference between Hubble and the new telescope. To photograph the Andromeda Galaxy, Hubble has to take 400 smaller images and stitch them together. For Roman’s camera, that should only take two pointings, she said. 

This wide, sharp vision is what scientists need to study the so-called “dark universe.” Ordinary matter — the stuff that makes up stars, planets, and even people — accounts for only about 5 percent of the cosmos. The bulk of it is dark matter and dark energy, which do not emit light but leave clues where they’ve influenced space’s expansion and the arrangement of galaxies.

“Current observations hint that our standard model of the universe is incorrect,” said Julie McHenry, senior project scientist, referring to cosmologists’ best recipe for the universe. “Roman will be able to confirm these and set us on the path to understanding what’s right.”

Roman will trace those clues in several ways at once. By mapping the positions and shapes of hundreds of millions of galaxies, it will show how structures have grown from the early universe to today. Subtle distortions in galaxy shapes will reveal how clumps of invisible space stuff bend their light on the way to us, exposing the hidden dark matter. At the same time, Roman will discover and track large numbers of a special kind of exploding star, known as Type Ia supernovas; their predictable brightness lets astronomers measure how quickly space has expanded over time.

NASA simulating a Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope image

Imaging large space targets, such as the Andromeda Galaxy, will require far fewer smaller images to stitch together than other flagship observatories.
Credit: NASA composite image

Taken together, these measurements will allow scientists to test competing ideas about dark matter, dark energy, and even the laws of gravity themselves with far greater precision than ever before. Other observatories can make similar kinds of measurements, but none combines Roman’s sharpness and sky coverage in the infrared, NASA mission leaders say, which lets it see more distant and dust-covered galaxies.

A new census of distant exoplanets

Roman’s wide‑field power also makes it skilled at exoplanet hunting. Previous missions like Kepler and TESS mostly found planets close to their stars, where their repeated crossings dim starlight in a regular rhythm. Roman will focus on a different region of planetary systems: the cooler, outer zones, where worlds similar to Jupiter and Saturn reside. It may even find wandering planets that aren’t tethered to stars.

To do this, Roman will repeatedly monitor dense star fields toward the center of our Milky Way. As a foreground star passes in front of a more distant one, its gravity will briefly magnify the background star’s light. If the foreground star carries planets, they can produce smaller, telltale blips in that brightening. This technique, called microlensing, works best in precisely the kind of crowded, faint, and distant regions that Roman is expected to capture.

Optical Engineer Bente Eegholm inspecting the primary mirror for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

Optical Engineer Bente Eegholm inspects the primary mirror for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
Credit: NASA / Chris Gunn

Over its mission, Roman will attempt to record thousands of these microlensing events, revealing planets at distances and masses other surveys mostly miss. From that haul, astronomers will compare our solar system’s architecture with many others and judge whether having inner rocky worlds and outer giant planets is the status quo or something more rare.

Roman will also test an advanced coronagraph — a system of masks and mirrors that blocks a star’s glare so the telescope can try to see the faint glow of planets around it. On Roman, this is more of a technology trial than an everyday science instrument, but if it works, it will set the stage for a future observatory whose main goal is to directly image Earth‑like worlds around other sun‑like stars.

“What astronomers can do today with coronagraph instruments is see planets that are maybe a million times fainter than their stars,” Vanessa Bailey, NASA’s Roman coronagraph scientist, told Mashable. “What we’re doing with the Roman coronagraph is hopefully getting to 10 million to 100 million times fainter, maybe even a little bit more, in the best case scenario.”

Catching the universe in motion

Roman is also built for studying how the sky changes, creating a veritable library of “before” and “after” shots.

Technicians assembling the solar panels on the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

Technicians assemble the solar panels on the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
Credit: NASA / Sydney Rohde

One of its major surveys will repeatedly scan high‑latitude regions of the sky, away from the plane of the Milky Way. By returning to the same fields every few days, Roman will catch supernovas as they ignite and fade, watch black holes light up as they feed on nearby material, and uncover other short-lived, dramatic events across the distant universe. Its infrared vision will reveal explosions and flares that dust clouds hide from visible‑light telescopes.

Another core program will stare toward the Milky Way’s central bulge. There, Roman will track how the brightness of millions of stars rises and falls on timescales of minutes to months. Those records will not only power the microlensing planet search but also expose other phenomena, such as neutron stars and black holes.

Because Roman will cover such large areas with fine detail, its images will also become a long‑lasting reference tool. When other telescopes later spot something odd — a burst of high‑energy radiation, for instance, or an unusual variable star — astronomers will be able to pull Roman’s earlier images and see what was there before the excitement.

“The images it captures will be so large there is not a screen in existence large enough to show them,” said NASA administrator Jared Isaacman. “Roman will give the Earth a new Atlas of the universe. I think it’s worth pausing for a moment just to think about how really incredible that is.”

source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

400K MagSafe power banks recalled after fatal fire, the 10th power bank recall in a year

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Casely reannounced a power bank recall this April after a fire linked to the device fatally injured a user. This is the tenth power bank recall in the United States in the last 12 months, and Anker recalled 1.5 million power banks in 2025.

The recall affects an estimated 429,200 Casely 5,000-mAh MagSafe Power Pods (Model E33A), which were originally recalled in 2025. The MagSafe power banks need to be completely replaced.

back of recalled Casely power banks

Back of Casely power banks.
Credit: CPSC

Affected customers should stop using the portable power banks immediately. They can also contact Casely to receive a free replacement.

“The recalled lithium-ion battery in the power banks can overheat and ignite, posing risk of serious injury or death from fire and burn hazards to consumers,” the CPSC stated on its recall website.

The Brooklyn-based company is reannouncing the recall after receiving 51 reports of the lithium-ion battery overheating, expanding, and/or catching fire while charging smartphones, “resulting in six minor burn injuries.” 

However, in the past year, the CPSC says 28 more reports have been made, including explosions that caused a serious accident on an airplane and one death.

In August 2024, a 75-year-old woman from New Jersey, was charging her cell phone with the power bank on her lap when it caught on fire and exploded. The victim suffered second and third degree burns and later passed away from complications from her injuries. In February 2026, a 47-year-old woman was charging her cell phone with the power bank on an airplane when it caught on fire and exploded, resulting in the victim suffering first degree burns. 

How to check your Casely Power Pod

Worried you may own one of the 429,000 recalled power banks? It’s easy to check if your device is included in the recall.

On the back of the device, look for the device’s model number, as show in a picture provided by the CPSC. If the model number reads “E33A,” then stop using the device immediately.

close-up of device information on back of casely power bank

Look for the model number.
Credit: CPSC

More information on requesting a replacement power bank is available on the CPSC and Casely recall websites.

source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

The new Dyson Supersonic Travel is the cheapest Supersonic yet

Table of Contents

Nearly three years ago, I asked if the (then) $429 Dyson Supersonic was still worth the price of entry.

These days, with the Supersonic line having expanded, the standard model having increased in price to $449.99, and the most expensive version of the hair dryer topping out at $549.99, it’s a question that feels even more apt.

The good news? If you’re not super into the idea of spending about $500 for a hair dryer, Dyson just announced the Dyson Supersonic Travel, a $299.99 model of its famous hair tool. In addition to its lower price point, it comes with more travel-friendly proportions and features.

As someone who’s personally tested Supersonics (and their many dupes), I took a closer look at the latest Dyson beauty launch to gather everything you need to know.

The design differences of the Dyson Supersonic Travel

In short, the Supersonic Travel is the standard Supersonic but smaller. According to Dyson, that comes out to exactly 32 percent smaller and 25 percent lighter than the OG Supersonic. In other words, it’s 0.7 pounds to the standard Supersonic’s 1.8 pounds, and 8.7 inches tall to the larger model’s 10 inches.

This model also comes with one attachment, the styling concentrator, a la the now-discontinued Dyson Supersonic Origin (which ran for $399.99). For comparison, the $449.99 Supersonic comes with three attachments: a styling concentrator, diffuser, and wide-tooth comb. For all five attachments, you’ll have to shell out $549.99.

dyson supersonic travel with attachments

The Supersonic Travel is compatible with all original and Supersonic Nural attachments.
Credit: Dyson

The same attachments can be used between the Travel, original, and Supersonic Nural dryers. This means opting for the Travel could technically save you some money — individual attachments range from $19.99 to $44.99. If you only use a styling concentrator and diffuser, for instance, the total cost of a Travel dryer with the extra attachment purchase would come out to $344.98, making it still over $100 cheaper than the three-attachment original Supersonic.

The Supersonic Travel is more versatile in some ways, and less so in others

Functionality-wise, the Supersonic Travel is a slightly different product from the other Supersonics in the line. It has anywhere from 1,000 to 1,220 watts of power and an airflow speed of 11.6 liters per second, compared to the 1,600 watts and 13.3 liters per second of the standard Supersonic. In other words, the bigger dryer is slightly more powerful, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect longer dry times.

The standard Supersonic and Supersonic Nural also feature four heats and three air speeds, where the Supersonic Travel features three heats and two air speeds.

That said, the Supersonic Travel has universal voltage compatibility, so it can be used from 100 to 240 volts, whereas the other Supersonics are locked into 120 volt compatibility.

In terms of its portability, it’s also worth noting the Supersonic Travel weighs the same as the Supersonic r, a professional grade hair dryer (priced as such at $549.99) that’s become more popular due in part to being lightweight and easy to maneuver.

Where to buy the Dyson Supersonic Travel

The Dyson Supersonic Travel is available for $299.99 at Dyson’s website, Amazon, and Best Buy. If you buy at the former, you will receive a complimentary $59.99 travel bag along with the hair dryer.

source

Continue Reading