Democracy is as the joke goes, the least worst option. I'm cynical not because democracy is inherently flawed but because it represents a kind of cognitive outsourcing of long-term large-scale planning to the hands of the many. There is serious work required for a citizen to have an opinion, and honestly we are *not* seeing that at this moment.

I thought it was fairly well-accepted that all models are wrong, some can be useful. Conceptually we should indeed be comfortable with the notion that there are inextricable interconnections and unknown unknowns and if that weren’t enough, the dynamics of how other agents will respond within the system over time. The trouble comes the moment you start to build something, anything.

Atlanta is a TV series which eschews the steady pace of a narrative arc for irreverent non sequitur explorations of various themes within the thematic context of being black in America. Everything about Atlanta from the characters, locations, narratives and dialogues are not designed to entertain but rather to let you, the viewer, enter into its empty negative spaces. And that’s where you meet its unnamed uncredited main character…

If we can agree that most reviews have a shorter lifetime than the media they reference, then is there any benefit to taking the time to review something? I think so. We might ask what drives a person to write a review in the first place? Or maybe we should inquire what makes a reader seek out a review instead. What value does a review provide to its reader, and more pertinently, how might a review best serve its reader?