Also, while the networks are overloaded on comedies, they're sadly lacking in stuff that includes the way real human beings talk (i.e. saying fuck) or stuff that can include drug humor, so there's plenty of room for doing stuff that hasn't been seen before.
Well, suffice to say that spreading their dollars across numerous pilots instead of one single show gets you what you expect: utter trash.
You can't compare the budget with House of Cards with the budget spent on these episodes. Amazon didn't make these pilots as an alternative to spending a lot of money on a single show. They did it as a prelude to spending a bunch of money on one or two shows.
I'm pretty certain Netflix produced a bunch of pilots which were equally as shaky as the Amazon work. The only difference is that those weren't shown to the general public, just focus groups and Netflix execs, and they picked the ones that they thought had the most promise. Many, if not most shows start out with a pilot that isn't nearly as good quality as the finished product, and not all series air a pilot as the first episode.
Your reaction to the pilots is pretty much why pilots don't get shown to the general audience: because most people go in with an expectation built up over years of watching final products.
I am regularly asked what average Internet users can do to ensure their security. My first answer is usually, "Nothing--you're screwed."
As a result, I've [wasted] hundreds of hours in code reviews because [I couldn't follow instructions]
Yeah, a lot of people have misconceptions, which is often why there are expert witnesses to clarify issues that aren't commonly in the general body of knowledge. However, that doesn't mean that any knowledge not gleaned from an expert witness is forbidden.
If you have special knowledge or information about any of the facts of a particular case , you should not communicate that information to other jurors. In deciding a case jurors are expected to bring to bear all the experience, common sense and common knowledge they possess; but they are not to rely on any private source of information
That means you can't use the fact that you happen know the defendant is left handed, or that the company he works for is releasing a new thing next week (because you work for the company too). On the other hand, if you know that guns can't be fired underwater, or that silencers as presented in movies don't actually exist, and it's pertinent to the case, you can fucking well say so. You just can't look stuff up that you don't already know.