I do know the addons (not the same as integrations) need the full OS yes. I have it on a Pi but you could do a virtual machine for HAOS (there is an official virtual machine image on their website, also make sure to pass through your matter/zigbee/etc USB adapter).

You could also just run the container Home Assistant version, and run any “addons” as other docker containers within CasaOS or Yuno host, and point the integrations at those. I imagine it would take a little bit of extra configuration but shouldn’t be too hard.

Sorry just seeing this, looks like there is a Home Assistant addon yes. Yunohost is very similar but seems to be more popular, so I’d say try both and see what you like.

Just seeing this post, I didn’t know this was a thing that could happen, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some Pre-S1 TOS. I don’t think Season 1 was ever canonically the first year of the five year mission.

I’m so confused by this comment. Season three is literally (literally) about “a Federation that keeps adapting, improving, and ultimately continuing as a positive force moving forward through the dedicated collaboration of an infinitely-diverse collaboration of peoples” even in the face of *overwhelming odds to the contrary. *

Well said, Enterprise is my least favorite… until Season 4 which I consider to be some of my favorite Star Trek.

But same goes for Discovery! I appreciated what they were trying to do but it didn’t click with me. And then seasons 4 and 5 I consider to be some of Trek’s best.

Thank you for the sanity. I get so tired hearing Burhnam being held to such an obvious double standard. I wonder why? What is different about the character?

OMG you’re so right.

Honestly I’m so used to hearing the same tired old arguments I didn’t even process that.

It just feels awfully weird to me that your list of criteria that makes a show “hateable” only applies to this particular show. And when another show checks off the items, the list suddenly stops being “hateable items” and instead becomes a list of minor nitpicks.

I just can’t figure out what the difference is, what could it be about Discovery in particular that would cause you to hold this list of criteria with such gravitas, but when the listed items appear on a different show, you don’t seem to mind? What could the difference be?

Why is it when those things you listed show up on other Star Trek series you consider them to be “flaws” on an “overall quality” show, but on Discovery they become “reasons to hate”? Why the double standard?

You didn’t say Discovery villains didn’t “have nuance and development”. So no, I didn’t say that either.

I agree that Gul Dukat is a delusional maniac! The guy I replied to said that only Discovery had such characters. But that said I will gladly accept your Armus!

I’m sorry, but if you truly watched the entire season, you’d know that your description of the events is incongruous with the events as presented on screen.

If I can present examples to you of those things happening in other Star Trek series would it change your mind about those other series?

Or does this list of criteria selectively apply specifically to Discovery?

I absolutely loved that look for the Klingons. I was so sad to see it meekly watered down in later episodes. It’s what they should have done in The Motion Picture!

Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise

• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future

Do you have any examples of the Nihilism? I’m struggling to think of any… In fact Season 3 was about maintaining optimism and faith in the strength of the Federation against unbelievable odds.

• Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions

Khan, Gul Dukat and the Clown from Voyager were all in Discovery?

• One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode

I agree that there was a main character, but I also enjoy a lot of media with a main character so I don’t see that as a bad thing.

• No attempt to explain things with any veneer of science

I suggest you avoid watching TNG and TOS because they do the same thing!

Discovery gets a lot of selective criticisms in online spaces. I don’t want to say it has anything to do with being the first Star Trek show with a Black female as a central main character, but Burhnam does seem to be more frequently criticized for behaviors that are celebrated when done by someone like Kirk or Riker.

There’s no doubt reactions to Discovery have been mixed.

I feel it’s important to note that a lot of the “reactions” we see today are the result of coordinated review-bombing campaigns by “anti-woke” outrage-peddling youtubers.

That’s not to say it’s universally beloved among Trekkies online, just that for someone trying to suss out the “reception” is going to have a difficult time separating authentic reviews from inauthentic ones.

Protip: “STD” is not the official abbreviation for Discovery, it’s “DSC”. If you call it “STD” people are going to assume you watch those outrage bait youtubers who complained about how Discovery was “too woke”.

She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued.

For clarity’s sake, a Mary Sue describes a character who can do no wrong. This is how it’s described on TVTropes:

[A Mary Sue] is exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws.

I’m curious how you square that description of a Mary Sue with Burhnam’s many regular, repeated, failures and flaws as seen on screen and described in the dialogue? As one example, her character is introduced in the very first episode as a misguided mutineer and is demoted for it.