Entertainment
Latest Star Trek Episode Makes Starfleet An Evil Organization That Abuses Children
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
The most recent Starfleet Academy episode made very dramatic changes to two of the fandom’s most favorite characters. When SAM begins glitching, the Doctor teams up with her people to develop a startling diagnosis. Namely, that she is unable to process trauma because her Makers didn’t implant any memories of growing up.
To fix his holographic homie, the Doctor makes the major decision to raise a rebooted version of SAM on her homeworld for the equivalent of 17 years. Doing so helps the Doctor heal from his own emotional trauma (he’s still mourning the holographic daughter he lost over 800 years ago) while giving her the emotional resilience she will need to handle pain.
This is obviously meant to be a sweet episode that establishes a father/daughter bond between two unlikely characters. Unfortunately, this episode accidentally makes Starfleet the villain because it confirms they let a child into their academy and subsequently put her in various dangerous situations.
Life’s A Glitch
When Starfleet Academy first premiered, SAM was the character that confused me the most. She had a bubbly, childlike personality that was implicit in her programming. Even though she holographically presented herself to the world as a young woman, she was only recently programmed. Therefore, she came into the world with fresh eyes, often approaching things like a hyper-teenage girl version of Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
After the show’s first episode, my question was simple: “Wait, y’all let a kid into Starfleet Academy?” While different alien races must mature at different rates, it always seemed like you had to be at least the equivalent of 16 years (like young Wesley Crusher) to even apply. Therefore, it seemed weird they would accept SAM, someone who was practically born (er, programmed) yesterday.
Gathering Enough Data
Soon, I mollified myself with the notion that 32nd-century Starfleet likely saw SAM the same way that 24th-century Starfleet saw Data. To such an organization, the actual age of a person may be less important than their knowledge and relative maturity. Data knew more than probably any human from the moment he was programmed, so it’s not like Starfleet would have wanted him to arbitrarily wait 16 years before applying to the academy.
SAM, I reasoned, must be the same way: programmed with the knowledge needed to excel at Starfleet Academy and ultimately become an exemplary officer. However, what I hadn’t considered was that Data originally had no emotions for Starfleet to worry about. Combined with his extensive knowledge, that made him more or less like a Vulcan. SAM’s emotions, however, were front and center in “Life of the Stars,” an episode that accidentally reveals Starfleet as a villain.
Starfleet’s Sudden Heel Turn
In that episode, SAM begins glitching out, and things get bad enough that the Doctor and Chancellor Ake take the hologram back to her homeworld. Eventually, they realize that she is stuck reliving recent trauma that she was literally unable to process. That’s because her Makers never gave her any memories of growing up, and without learning resilience, she would be unable to handle the flood of negative emotions that come from traumatic experiences.
Our heroes save the day by proposing that the Doctor raise SAM until she is 17, effectively giving her an entire childhood with which to develop necessary emotional resilience. But I was struck by the revelation that SAM was programmed with no experiences or memories of any kind. Sure, she had plenty of intellect programmed in, but in every other respect, she had the mind of a child.
The Dangers Of Enrolling Literal Children
In that way, the happy ending of this episode confirmed my original suspicions that it was weird and downright dangerous for Starfleet Academy to accept a child into its ranks. She was someone without the capacity to really understand most of what she encountered, and her attempts to process something as relatively commonplace (at least, in Starfleet) as trauma nearly got her killed. Put another way, Starfleet nearly got this cadet killed because they didn’t accurately vet her during the application process!
Maybe there will eventually be some crunchy backstory to this; for example, we might get a revelation that, post-Burn, Starfleet is accepting almost every application they receive. Back in the 24th century, applicants like Wesley Crusher had to pass a psychological test where they confronted their greatest fears and showed they had the emotional resilience needed to be a Starfleet officer. In dropping tests like this and just blindly accepting SAM’s application without knowing exactly how she was programmed, Starfleet put her and her fellow cadets in danger.
Skeezy administrators cutting corners in order to boost enrollment numbers? Maybe Starfleet Academy is more like the modern university system than any of us ever imagined!
Entertainment
Cameron Diaz And Christina Applegate's Ultra-Raunchy, R-Rated Comedy Is A Forgotten Classic
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
Did you know that one of the most celebrated film genres of the ‘80s and ‘90s has quietly died? The genre in question is the R-rated comedy, one typified by vintage classics such as Porky’s and American Pie. These movies won over audiences through a simple combination of raunchy jokes and scantily clad stars.
These days, the R-rated comedy has been retired in favor of streamer-friendly slop, and it’s nearly impossible to find films featuring this potent combination of dirty jokes and exposed flesh. But over two decades ago, we got a criminally underappreciated sex comedy with a twist: instead of focusing on men, it focuses on women proving just how much they love to get nasty when the boys aren’t around. That film is The Sweetest Thing (2002), and you can now stream this star-studded classic for free on Tubi!
Treat Yourself To Some Pleasure
The premise of The Sweetest Thing is that Cameron Diaz plays a woman with a reputation for loving and leaving men so that she can keep enjoying the single life. However, she runs into a man who pushes back against her take-charge attitude, getting under her skin like no man ever had before. After getting an invite to a wedding the man is attending, she embarks on a raunchy road trip with her best friends, proving once and for all that the fairer sex can be just as rude, crude, and hilariously nasty as any man.
For a relatively unknown raunch comedy, The Sweetest Thing has a really star-studded cast, including Christina Applegate (best known for Married…With Children) as a divorce lawyer and BFF who really holds her gal pals together. Selma Blair (best known for Cruel Intentions) plays one of those pals, someone who might just rebound with a confident hunk played by Thomas Jane (best known for Boogie Nights). He has a chauvinistic brother played by Jason Bateman (best known for Arrested Development); however, the performer who anchors the entire thing is Cameron Diaz (best known for Charlie’s Angels), who delivers a dirty-talking, fearlessly raunchy performance that may forever change how you see this cinematic girl-next-door.
Hated By The Critics
The Sweetest Thing proved to be a modest box office success, earning $68.7 million against a $43 million budget. Sadly, the film didn’t prove to be the same kind of pop culture phenomenon that earlier gross-out movies like There’s Something About Mary were. However, this movie did cement Cameron Diaz (who notably played Mary in the earlier film) as an actress who is never afraid to get down and dirty in order to make the audience laugh.
When The Sweetest Thing came out, critics really hated it: the movie has a 25 percent critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with reviewers complaining about the thin plot and the bevy of hit-or-miss gags. However, it’s worth noting that the movie has a 64 percent critical score. This helps prove that this raunchy film is quite the crowd-pleaser, with audiences deeming it “fresh” even as critics declared it downright rotten.
More Than A Few Surprises
So, the critics hated it, and it wasn’t exactly a box office darling. Why, then, should you watch The Sweetest Thing? The short answer is that it is funny in the most transgressive way, and if you have a dirty mind (it’s not just me, right?), you’ll find plenty to love in this raucously funny raunchiest.
Then and now, part of what makes The Sweetest Thing so entertaining is that it is an unflinchingly gender swapped version of the “boys behaving badly” genre of film. Even if you’ve seen male-led movies like The Hangover a million times, there is something refreshing about seeing women take part in the same kinds of gross-out gags and filthy conversations usually reserved for men. It helps that the central actors embrace the sex jokes with such gusto, and Cameron Diaz’s hypnotic performance is practically an ecstasy of exhibitionism.
Guys are sure to enjoy the film; after all, it’s filled with hot ladies, dirty talk, and nudity, all of which can reliably rev a fellow’s motor. But The Sweetest Thing is designed by and for women, and much of its humor works by making men the butt of some fairly hilarious jokes.
Time To Get Down And Dirty
The scene is funny in and of itself, but the punchline doesn’t come from girls behaving badly; rather, it comes from the fact that guys are so easy to manipulate when it comes to anything and everything naughty. This is just one small example of the film’s surprising emphasis on sex positivity and its emphasis on female agency. It’s the rare raunchy comedy framed from the perspective of the female gaze, but most men will be too busy laughing to realize that male horniness is the butt of each and every surprisingly funny joke.
Will you agree that The Sweetest Thing deserves more love when you watch it on Netflix, or will these gals gross you out before the end of the first scene? The only way to find out is to stream the film and rediscover this overlooked classic for yourself. If nothing else, you’ll never look at Cameron Diaz the same way after these credits roll!
Entertainment
NYT Pips hints, answers for February 28, 2026
Welcome to your guide to Pips, the latest game in the New York Times catalogue.
Released in August 2025, the Pips puts a unique spin on dominoes, creating a fun single-player experience that could become your next daily gaming habit.
Currently, if you’re stuck, the game only offers to reveal the entire puzzle, forcing you to move onto the next difficulty level and start over. However, we have you covered! Below are piecemeal answers that will serve as hints so that you can find your way through each difficulty level.
How to play Pips
If you’ve ever played dominoes, you’ll have a passing familiarity for how Pips is played. As we’ve shared in our previous hints stories for Pips, the tiles, like dominoes, are placed vertically or horizontally and connect with each other. The main difference between a traditional game of dominoes and Pips is the color-coded conditions you have to address. The touching tiles don’t necessarily have to match.
The conditions you have to meet are specific to the color-coded spaces. For example, if it provides a single number, every side of a tile in that space must add up to the number provided. It is possible – and common – for only half a tile to be within a color-coded space.
Here are common examples you’ll run into across the difficulty levels:
-
Number: All the pips in this space must add up to the number.
-
Equal: Every domino half in this space must be the same number of pips.
-
Not Equal: Every domino half in this space must have a completely different number of pips.
-
Less than: Every domino half in this space must add up to less than the number.
-
Greater than: Every domino half in this space must add up to more than the number.
If an area does not have any color coding, it means there are no conditions on the portions of dominoes within those spaces.
Easy difficulty hints, answers for Feb. 28 Pips
Number (6): Everything in this space must add up to 6. The answer is 6-4, placed horizontally.
Equal (4): Everything in this space must be equal to 4. The answer is 4-0, placed horizontally; 6-4, placed horizontally; 4-4, placed vertically.
Equal (0): Everything in this purple space must be equal to 0. The answer is 4-0, placed horizontally; 0-5, placed horizontally.
Greater Than (4): Everything in this space must be greater than 4. The answer is 0-5, placed horizontally.
Number (6): Everything in this space must add up to 6. The answer is 6-2, placed vertically.
Medium difficulty hints, answers for Feb. 28 Pips
Greater Than (1): Everything in this space must be greater than 1. The answer is 5-2, placed horizontally.
Mashable Top Stories
Number (9): Everything in this space must add up to 9. The answer is 5-2, placed horizontally; 4-0, placed vertically.
Number (0): Everything in this space must add up to 0. The answer is 4-0, placed vertically.
Number (3): Everything in this space must add up to 3. The answer is 1-1, placed vertically; 2-1, placed horizontally; 0-5, placed vertically.
Equal (2): Everything in this space must be equal to 2. The answer is 2-1, placed horizontally; 2-2, placed vertically.
Greater Than (0): Everything in this space must be greater than 0. The answer is 1-4, placed horizontally.
Number (15): Everything in this space must add up to 15. The answer is 0-5, placed vertically; 1-4, placed horizontally; 6-2, placed horizontally.
Greater Than (1): Everything in this space must be greater than 1. The answer is 6-2, placed horizontally.
Hard difficulty hints, answers for Feb. 28 Pips
Greater Than (3): Everything in this space must be greater than 3. The answer is 5-2, placed vertically.
Equal (2): Everything in this purple space must be equal to 2. The answer is 5-2, placed vertically; 3-2, placed vertically.
Number (2): Everything in this space must add up to 2. The answer is 1-3, placed vertically; 1-4, placed vertically.
Number (1): Everything in this space must add up to 1. The answer is 6-1, placed horizontally.
Less Than (6): Everything in this space must be greater than 6. The answer is 4-5, placed horizontally.
Number (6): Everything in this space must add up to 6. The answer is 3-3, placed vertically.
Number (5): Everything in this space must add up to 5. The answer is 1-3, placed vertically; 2-4, placed horizontally.
Number (4): Everything in this space must add up to 4. The answer is 4-6, placed vertically.
Equal (4): Everything in this space must be equal to 4. The answer is 4-4, placed vertically; 1-4, placed vertically; 4-5, placed horizontally; 2-4, placed horizontally; 4-0, placed vertically.
Number (0): Everything in this space must add up to 0. The answer is 4-0, placed vertically.
Number (3): Everything in this space must add up to 3. The answer is 6-3, placed horizontally.
If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Entertainment
New Scream Movie Panned By Critics Over Politics, Breaks Franchise Box-Office Records
By Jennifer Asencio
| Published
According to film critics, Scream 7 is the death of the franchise. With an aggregate of 33% from 120 critic reviews as of this writing, it’s easy to believe they are right. There is just one problem: the movie is so popular that it’s poised to break opening-weekend franchise records.
The previous record was set by Scream VI, which opened with $44 million. The new movie is projected to approach or break $50 million, with some estimates as high as $59 million. Fans gave Scream 7 a 77% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating a big gap between audiences and critics.
How Politics Influences The Reviews Of Critics
The one thing that all the bad reviews have in common is discussion of the firing of Melissa Barerra and the subsequent departure of Jenna Ortega, both of whom played characters central to the two previous installations. Barerra was fired for making inflammatory remarks about Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, sentiments which are shared by many in the entertainment industry; Ortega left in protest of Barrera’s dismissal. A lot of critics and major entertainment news venues sympathize with Barrera’s views, and some of these are gleefully reporting the Rotten Tomatoes critics’ ratings as though it means something for the movie.
Critics also infamously panned the biopic of the First Lady, Melania, with an even wider gap of 11% based on 53 reviews, while over 1000 audience reviewers average 98%. They are also offering great praise to the politically motivated series Starfleet Academy, the latest Star Trek show that hasn’t really resonated with fans, but which we keep being told is the best Star Trek yet. Meanwhile, the Daily Wire+ show The Pendragon Cycle has been ignored by mainstream critics, with no score on Rotten Tomatoes at all, not even a 0, despite an average of 85% from viewers.
What this all indicates is that industry reviewers are circling the wagons based on political divides rather than giving honest reviews. They are evaluating movies with greater consideration of whether they check certain boxes off-screen, and are boycotting or panning films that don’t neatly fit their mold. Critics are relying on their authority as insiders to dictate culture through the lens of politics rather than examining movies on their own merits and audience potential.
Professional Review Bombing
Some commenters have even accused the collective of mainstream critics of “review bombing” Scream 7. Review bombing is a phenomenon in which individuals give a movie a bad rating for some motive outside the show. Recently, a review bombing war between A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms fans and Breaking Bad fans resulted in the IMDB rating of the latter’s crowning episode, “Ozymandias,” being reduced to a 9.5 from a perfect 10. The war started because the Game of Thrones spinoff received some bad reviews from Breaking Bad fans, who may or may not have been acting in bad faith.
However, those are individuals, even if some of them coordinated via an internet campaign. They are not the professionals relied on to be unbiased and to evaluate movies and television based on the productions themselves, not on who made them or their politics. The fact that the critics don’t seem to be connected to what audiences seem to want makes it even worse, because we are all being told that liking the stuff we like makes us bigoted if they don’t like it. And they also seem to think that if they ignore it altogether, like with The Pendragon Cycle, that maybe it will slip by unnoticed.
How much of our culture is being suppressed by critics with political agendas? Scream 7 indicates that the question needs to be asked as it is such a runaway hit that the motives of mainstream reviewers may not be critique, but activism.
Michigan G L.J. Cason (ACL) to miss rest of season
San Diego maintaining 2025 momentum entering St. Louis City clash
