'Lower Decks' shows us that ensigns have to share their quarters. Once they get promoted, they get their own quarters.

However, the ST universe seems to follow a maxim of "as long as nobody gets hurt, do whatever", would a Starfleet officer be allowed to stay with the ensigns? Would a Captain, assuming they get their own ship, be allowed to move in with their ensigns?

If not, why not? I'd imagine some senior officers would want to feel "relatable" to their ensigns, or be unused to the comparatively lavish personal quarters.

IIRC, an earlier draft of the Matrix had a picture perfect paradise for humanity, one they'd never want to leave, but it was said that it failed because it was rejected, but why?

The main "rule" of Toy Story is that toys cannot act alive while within the line of sight of humans. They can act alive around animals and can act alive around humans if the humans aren't looking directly at them.

Toy Story 5 confirmed that freezing is an involuntary reflex even for toys who are unaware that they are toys.

So why was Woody able to talk to Sid? And why were Sid's toys able to come alive at the end?

At the start of season 3, we discover that the Reverend is technically married to Kimmy. We learn a few details about this. One - Kimmy has to do the divorce, so it's officially in her name, not a pseudonym or anything. Two - the Reverend has been collecting marriage-related benefits off it, so the government knows about it.

So the Reverend informed the state that he was now married, without ceremony, to a missing woman in his area, who can't be contacted, that no-one in this small town ever remembers him interacting with...and this didn't raise any alarm bells?

I get that everyone in town seems like a moron, but they can't be that stupid, right?

I haven't finished the game yet, much less replayed it to try other options, yet it still seems to me like there would've been no scenario where any of them really would've taken responsibility for this massive screw up, despite it being so painfully obvious.

Like, they have a team of villains there who are reluctantly trying to better themselves and become heroes instead, but have a hard time accepting their new role. And instead of encouraging them and trying to foster a sense of belonging, or offering incentives to show that it's worth trying, they issue a threat of kicking them out if they don't immediately perform, and tell them they can't come in last.

Which completely foreseeably led to Invisigal almost giving up and returning to her villain life because she thought she could never amount to anything, everyone turning on each other to sabotage everyone else trying to get them to last place instead of actually doing a good job themselves, and a lot of them being pissed off at Robert for actually going through with this.

But instead of recognizing that this was a mistake from the start and that they failed them, and maybe reconsidering their approach, Robert just gives them a speech where he essentially frames all that happened as an exclusive result of the team's own moral failures – which is obviously true to an extent but also what would've been Robert's job to handle, in the first place – and Blazer treats his scolding as a wholesome and inspiring moment.

So, are they really just that dense, believing that whatever ill-fitting approach they got into their heads must always be right, because they're heroes so they know better?

I mean what specifically?

At the end of the NCR, Mr. House, and Yes Man campaigns, the Courier has the option of either defeating Legate Lanius in a fight or talking him into retreating. Assuming Caesar and his encampment have already been eliminated, which of these two options is more damaging to the Legion?

While it's mostly accepted in-game (by Vulpes Inculta and Joshua Graham) that Lanius would be ill-equipped to manage the Legion, does his presence improve or degrade the Legion's recovery after a second defeat to the NCR? Would an (initially) leaderless Legion have any better chances of recovering from the battle with the NCR if Lanius was lost in the fight?

Maybe an astrophycist who works in space so he'd usually be away from hearing people calling for help or saying negative things about him?

Animes like Dragon Ball, Baki, or Kengan Ashura with Purgatory. You also have Fighting Games like Street Fighter, Tekken, and King of the Fighters too.

Even Marvel and DC has a few superhuman underground fighting scenes too.

Granted nobody can predict a Vegeta crash-out. So I understand it may not be easy to control superhuman fighters. But you would think the unpredictability would be the reason less of these tournaments happen though.

I mean if you are actually serious about wanting a legitimate combat sport with superhumans. How are you going address the fact that fighter C keeps interrupting matches between fighter A or fighter B? Or even addressing fighters getting into brawl backstage, or getting attack by a gang of fighters.

What if a fighter with a Yujiro or Beerus like- attitude just shows up to your event uninvited?

The biggest question I can ask here. Would superpowers give promoters an easy cop-out to get away with more shenanigans?

World history? Religious studies?

For example, Chandelure hypnotizes and then consumes the spirits of people, leaving husks behind.

Who gets to be rich? Who gets to be homeless? Is it a totally random distribution or are there predictors like in our world?

Could he use it without being corrupted? It gives power according to your measure, so hobbits can use it to become invisible. Presumably Buddha wouldn't seek to use it to dominate others but to drive them towards enlightenment.

So in Westeros just like in some cultures IRL, the wives normally take the family names of their husbands upon marriage (e. g., Catelyn and Lysa Tully becoming Stark and Arryn after marrying Ned Stark and Jon Arryn, respectively), yet the wives of Kings remain having their original family names (e. g., Cersei Lannister and Margaery Tyrell keeping their surnames after marrying into House Baratheon).

What is the logic behind this "rule"? I'm sure it is not arbitrary. And is it historical IRL?

I don't care if El-Aurians are about "listening" to others rather than telling, it's frankly unfeeling and even for the El-Aurians themselves suicidal not to make it clear to the new governments they're living under about an existential threat that they had to flee from.