This ep. Is more significant in terms of the series than it might appear, in the scenes where the director of the facility is describing their set-up to Togusa, when she's describing both types of the syndrome, she rattles off the presumably simplified-version (directors of medical facilities often aren't as medically-aware or educated as doctors themselves ) of the behind-their-own-barriers type of CSS, as,
"...making it impossible to return."
I noticed here that such as with our 20th/21st century firewalls, where NEGOTIATION , can be an option, for controlled / filtered connections and exchanges, that she uses an ABSOLUTE, when saying "impossible".
Sometimes, neo-WW2 adoptions of American policy when they've been rejected after someone's thought them worth adopting, have no impact outside of their immediate scope-OF-policy, but perhaps here, is a well-thought-through addition of when IMITATION is a risk - if imitating American online agencies, that in the 20th C at least, often, if-not usually, imitated American CIA and diplomatic agencies or agencies receiving instruction FROM them, when negotiation, was in the cold-war, often seen as too slow, inadequate in getting objectives, 'results' , or whatever, then it seems suitably matched, to find some kid who's adopted a distracting persona with his catcher in the rye , as well as an American sport further-attribution, as someone who could already-be a victim of too-much or inappropriate choice of the above - WHEN, to not-negotiate , or, when to develop, code, publish, distribute,.. whatever,.. programs, installations,.. whatever,.. that-negotiate, in the coding/exchange sense of what would complicate connecting to others or the net, in the premise.
Yes, the premise is one in which people's familiarity with abandoning a lot of privacy, as consciousness has blurred, is already one where societally, the advantages are seen as outweighing the downsides, but that's not the point,.. to add a correspondence, or at least to match that kind of reluctance in preference for-access, (for the abuser or power or position)
is a although-depressing, enflaming, portrayal, a true and worthy one, in terms of presenting how policy-adoption / imitation, can have INDIRECT negative effects, or leave you susceptible, if something that is useful for one agency or department or sector, is used in another, potentially mis-matched, or just, not-NEEDS-matched for suitability in the first place,
such as when corporates CLAIM cross-disciplines experience-relevance - a director of a school, claims "relevant experience" to attempt to manage a prison, a manager of a small entertainment production company, claims "relevant experience" in being able to attempt-to run a broadcasting company prone to bribery for chosen content and affected by outside influences, etc.
It was only a tiny little ... moment, of observance,.. as he's taking in so much as he's being walked around this brain-juice factory,
but that kind of attention to detail / matched writing, makes for more believable premise in terms of realism.
Bleak, depressing, but people need to think about it.
Good-writing/editing!
I noticed here that such as with our 20th/21st century firewalls, where NEGOTIATION , can be an option, for controlled / filtered connections and exchanges, that she uses an ABSOLUTE, when saying "impossible".
Sometimes, neo-WW2 adoptions of American policy when they've been rejected after someone's thought them worth adopting, have no impact outside of their immediate scope-OF-policy, but perhaps here, is a well-thought-through addition of when IMITATION is a risk - if imitating American online agencies, that in the 20th C at least, often, if-not usually, imitated American CIA and diplomatic agencies or agencies receiving instruction FROM them, when negotiation, was in the cold-war, often seen as too slow, inadequate in getting objectives, 'results' , or whatever, then it seems suitably matched, to find some kid who's adopted a distracting persona with his catcher in the rye , as well as an American sport further-attribution, as someone who could already-be a victim of too-much or inappropriate choice of the above - WHEN, to not-negotiate , or, when to develop, code, publish, distribute,.. whatever,.. programs, installations,.. whatever,.. that-negotiate, in the coding/exchange sense of what would complicate connecting to others or the net, in the premise.
Yes, the premise is one in which people's familiarity with abandoning a lot of privacy, as consciousness has blurred, is already one where societally, the advantages are seen as outweighing the downsides, but that's not the point,.. to add a correspondence, or at least to match that kind of reluctance in preference for-access, (for the abuser or power or position)
is a although-depressing, enflaming, portrayal, a true and worthy one, in terms of presenting how policy-adoption / imitation, can have INDIRECT negative effects, or leave you susceptible, if something that is useful for one agency or department or sector, is used in another, potentially mis-matched, or just, not-NEEDS-matched for suitability in the first place,
such as when corporates CLAIM cross-disciplines experience-relevance - a director of a school, claims "relevant experience" to attempt to manage a prison, a manager of a small entertainment production company, claims "relevant experience" in being able to attempt-to run a broadcasting company prone to bribery for chosen content and affected by outside influences, etc.
It was only a tiny little ... moment, of observance,.. as he's taking in so much as he's being walked around this brain-juice factory,
but that kind of attention to detail / matched writing, makes for more believable premise in terms of realism.
Bleak, depressing, but people need to think about it.
Good-writing/editing!
