Oh, no problem.
And heh, I was fuming while watching ep 3 and taking breaks to rant at my friend, but I guess it ended okayyyy. The first thing was the hammering in of the concept that algorithms, i.e., science, are pure and unbiased whereas any programmer can tell you it’s only as unbiased as its programmer, so not unbiased at all. Even–especially learning algorithms. How can something we built based on things we’ve done not be as biased as us? And pitting it against emotions, as if they’re mutually exclusive, Allison’s brother telling her to come at the judge’s decision with emotion, as if it wasn’t straight up facts that won her the argument. But even though they didn’t spell out why algorithms aren’t perfect, at least they admitted it, so I let it go.
The other thing was when Sandra and Kate were head to head and Kate was arguing with the rules on her side and Sandra was trying to appeal to her sense of fairness. And I love rules, I’ve never liked the loose canon maverick, but why didn’t Sandra point out the government broke the rules first? Why not reframe the situation for Kate? Sandra was appealing to her sense of fairness because it’s wrong…because it broke a rule.
Why does national security trump everything and allow rules to be taken away? I wish that had been put to Kate. Or at least alluded to in the ep.
I was just angry that the conceit of the show is all these clever people arguing cleverly but they missed two major things, or worse, actually think that way and then imparted it onto their audience. But ep 5 was pretty great so I forgave them a lot.