They have it out for us.

CSI: was there an explanation of all the codes, or why the circles of hell? I kind of stopped paying attention partway through.

Uh...I don't think so? Admittedly, I kind of tuned out too.

Having a father who doesn't love you is hell.

Clearly.

That almost makes sense with the synthetic DNA, I guess. Big old metaphor?

Why do you need ternary code to use DNA for your message, anyway? I would think you'd want base 2 (like in Orphan Black) or base 4.

Given that they showed standard GTCA components of the DNA (there was a transition from the 0,1, and 2 to that), ternary was an odd choice.

This is probably a stupid question, but do they want us on any cops sides in scenarios like Blue Bloods?

Why doesn't lawyer sister say "If he goes on trial and *isn't* found guilty and it was him, HE GETS AWAY WITH IT FREE AND CLEAR. I am not doing this until I am doing it right. I'm not refusing to do it--I'm refusing to do it yet--let's make this solid and punish the shit out of the person who did this."?

I feel they give the cops the same frustrations and their convictions seem to be a weird mix of bullheadedness and naivete.

If you get a chance, I rec "Arne Dahl" based on the Pseud of the author of the books on which the series is based. Swedish with subtitles. Part of what I like is that I find the ensemble of characters interesting. The name of the group translates as "A Group", but I prefer to think of it as the "A team". Led by a tough-as-nails woman in her fifties who is involved in a long distance romance with a Black American FBI agent. The field team includes a former Mr. Sweden and body builder who contributes physical strength, a short dark haired woman who does OK at hand-to-hand in spite of her height, but is a championship shooter, a computer wiz born of Chilean refugees and a good cop in the modern high tech sense, an ex-crooked lawyer now an honest cop expert at lateral thinking and making intuitive leaps, a cop with a troubled marriage who is a good cop in a more old fashioned way - kind of the generalist on the team, and also really good at making judgement calls when in a hurry. Then there is Viggo, who as far as I can tell is a warm body. Although I've described them by contribution to the team, they are written and acted as three dimensional characters. Not as nearly as cliched as I make them sound. The soap opera aspect is done well. It is not exactly Castle level froth, but not as dark as many Swedish crime dramas. Some of the dark stuff is also worthy of a Castle episode, but much more straight-faced, for instance an evil CIA conspiracy. In terms of the balance between absurdity and darkness I'd put it between Castle and Broadchurch, closer to Broadchurch than Castle, but not by much. In case it is a trigger for anyone, most of ensemble end up in a hospital near death in one episode or another, barely surviving gruesome injuries by bad guys.

I discovered the above, because my Mom, while recovering from the concussion has lots of time to watch TV. She discovered MHZ Public Interntional TV [link] . It mixes news from non-English speaking nations (some in English, some with English Subtitles) and international mysteries (all in languages other than English with subtitles.) She likes Montalbano a lot and Arne Dahl. She finds the main character in Dolman dull - a police officer should not be a ingenue gothic heroine - and does not really care who is behind the conspiracy. She also thinks Antigone 34 is pedestrian - a grittier French Officer Friday with tits. She thinks the Maigret series is pretty true in spirit to the Simenon novels. She thinks "Blood on the Docks" is Ok when you have a concussion, but does not recommend it to anyone with a fully functioning brain. Even with a concussion, says "The Half Brother" makes her want to throw stuff at the television.

I'm just starting the finale of Broadchurch. I'm already a sobbing mess again starting with Nige being given the article on his biological mother (that was fucking mean of Alec).

I love that as we discover people's secrets, you get them. You get why they did what they did, you get why they were silent or squirrely about information. There's no mustache-twirling or contrived machinations (that I've spotted). Just a lot of "now that I know the facts, I can see why you did what you did".