I finished Netflix’s relatively new political drama, The Diplomat (2023-), last week. The cast and writing are both excellent but I can get my take it or leave it recommendation down to five simple words: Michael McKean plays the president.

More than a few people mentioned the show to me but none mentioned that. Worse, some suggested it’s like The West Wing (it isn’t) without bothering to point out the glaringly obvious connection (and no, it’s not context). It made me wonder whether, given the overwhelming volume of content available in any medium, the basis of or our recommendations to one another now proceed less from critical taste (or even novelty) and more from a more general need to relate.

That is, you see the thing to see the thing, not to learn, grow, or be challenged. If that’s the case, we’ve become nothing more than extensions of the algorithm.

I think recommendations should aim for two things. First, they should only ever be offered in a take it or leave it way (otherwise, your over-investment makes the other person feel like you’ve assigned homework). Second, they should be concise but relevant. Don’t tell me it’s good, tell me why it’s good. Don’t tell me what it’s like, tell me what it does differently. And, if there’s an inspired choice, in the casting for example, maybe lead with that.

If you read one thing this week, make it Kai Bird’s piece on J. Robert Oppenheimer in the New Yorker. Here’s why:

In 1954, America’s most celebrated scientist was falsely accused and publicly humiliated, sending a warning to all scientists not to engage in the political arena as public intellectuals. This was the real tragedy of the Oppenheimer case. What happened to him damaged our ability as a society to debate honestly about scientific theory—the very foundation of our modern world.