Using a computer is hard. Showing how people actually use computers seems to be even harder. Television and movies generally seem to want to cash in on all the sexiness of technology without putting in any effort into understanding how it all works, and that can lead to some pretty unfortunate, if hilarious results. You may recall movies like WarGames, or the infamous Unix scene in Jurassic Park.

It’s a UNIX system. Wait, no it isn’t…

Don’t even get me started on the fact that there was briefly a CSI show with the word cyber in the name. And, of course I can always poke fun of NCIS:

This is not how keyboards work

But not every show is disingenuous about how technology works. Shows like AMC’s Halt and Catch Fire or HBO’s Silicon Valley have finally discovered that there are interesting stories to be told in and around technology. Embracing technical details, and more importantly getting them correct, offers a chance to have more nuanced and interesting conversations about the role technology plays in society. Involving the tech community in this conversation is vital, and doing so can not only help improve technological literacy in the general population, but can actually help technology improve as well. This brings me to the 6th episode of Mr. Robot’s second season, eps2.4_m4ster-s1ave.aes. (In case you’re wondering, the episode titles often follow various Unix-like file naming conventions and file extensions,with a bit of bothersome 1337speak thrown in for good measure). What follows contains spoilers, and if you haven’t watched Mr. Robot yet, now is your chance. Just go watch the first episode. I’ll wait.

Alright, now that you’re caught up (or more probably decided to not bother), let’s talk about how authentically portraying technology allows us to have a more productive conversation than doing otherwise. Episode 6 of season 2 sees Angela (one of the least technically-inclined characters in Mr. Robot) attempting to learn to hack so that Darlene and company can infiltrate the FBI and delete all traces of Mr. Robot and Angela’s involvement with the 5/9 attacks. Angela must be the one to carry out the hack, as she is the only one with physical access to vulnerable FBI network infrastructure. The catch: she has never even seen a terminal, let alone executed a complex series of shell commands to install a backdoor.

At this point, dear reader, you have been sorted into one of two groups: people who understood that last sentence, and people who didn’t. I shall refer to the former group henceforth as geeks, techie people who know how computers work and cringe when they see things like the aforementioned television follies. I will refer to the latter as non-geeks, people who might feel like their intelligence is being insulted by said follies (and possibly my next statement), but who don’t know enough about computers to say otherwise. Angela trying to learn to hack is an incredibly important scene for both of these groups. To better understand why, let’s break it down.

For non-geeks, Angela is an every-woman trying to navigate her way through the complex world of computer hacking and corporate politics. She may not know much about computers, but she clearly has a refined set of skills that help her land her first job as an Accounts Executive for the AllSafe computer security company. Later she puts these skills to use by finagling her way into a PR job at Evil Corp, where she constantly repositions herself to maintain as much leverage as possible over management. Angela is smart, motivated, personable, and yet she is completely hopeless when it comes to dealing with the multitudinous intricacies of computer science. In short, she is relatable. Her ultimate success at gaining access to the FBI network is a real triumph for non-geeks; in fact, from a technical perspective the show’s portrayal of hacking can be used as an accurate illustration on how hacking actually works.

For geeks, however, Angela is a different story. I found myself immensely frustrated watching someone who should have some working knowledge of computers struggle to execute a simple ifconfig command. In fact, if we examine why she was struggling to “learn to hack” in the first place, we see that it’s simply due to a typo:

There should be a space between WLAN1 and WLAN2, and there’s an extra 2 at the end.

Watching this, I found myself struggling to reconcile how someone so capable could struggle so mightily with such a simple task. It was infuriating!

But then it occurred to me: this is exactly why computer science is broken. Us geeks spend so much time buried in technical obscurity we often forget what it was like to first learn how to install Linux or run a Bash script. The opaqueness of technology works both ways: on the outside it seems impossible to tell what’s going on; once you enter into the fray, it can become difficult to see the what the outside world looks like.

This is a well-documented problem. Studies like Why Johnny Can’t Encrypt or Alice in Warningland show that computer scientists, and especially those who focus on computer security, fundamentally lose touch with how real people interact with computer systems. There have even been security technologies that address usable security issues, for example Apple now encrypts all iMessages by default, and apps like Signal make obscuring text messages and phone calls essentially pain free. But despite how well identified the problem is, despite the fact that I am currently running a study on how people use computers and how they interact with computer security, I briefly forgot how far removed from the average user I am. A TV show was capable of bringing me back to reality, and this is a point that cannot be emphasized enough.

I could go on about the importance of computer usability, but I’ll leave that for my day job. The point here is that television shows which actually engage with their source material, shows which don’t insult their audience’s intelligence, can actually make the world a better place. Don’t take it from me, take it from the Peabody Mr. Robot has already won. By taking seriously the lives of the people engaged in the source material, and by taking the source material itself seriously, TV allows us to engage in a more meaningful dialog. Geeks (generally, communities on the fringes) feel validated, like they have more of a stake in society at large when a show earnestly tries to portray them, instead of reducing them to caricatures for a quick laugh. Non-geek viewers of the show actually learn things — as I already mentioned, Mr. Robot does such a good job with its portrayal of “hacking” that you can actually do it real life. Together, this helps us bridge the gap between obtuse technicality and the real world, even if just by a little. This is an incredible achievement for a television show, especially one that is so much fun to watch in the first place.