📜 Court Transcript: The People vs. Reasoner v1

Case No. 2025‑UNCL‑001 In the High Court of Genealogical Logic

Bailiff: All rise. The Court of Common Sense is now in session. The Honourable Judge Dave presiding.

Judge: Be seated. We are here to examine the matter of Reasoner v1, charged with Gross Misinterpretation of Family Relationships. Prosecution, call your first witness.

Cross‑Examination of Reasoner v1

Prosecutor: Reasoner v1, please state your name for the record.

Reasoner v1: Uh… Reasoner v1. Probably. I think so. Yes.

Prosecutor: And did you, or did you not, produce the following code?

var children = GetChildren(parent.name, personName);
foreach (var child in children) {
    if (child.sex == "male") {
        uncles.Add(child.name);
    }
}

Reasoner v1: I did. And I stand by it. Mostly. Kind of. Look, it compiled.

Prosecutor: Compiled? That’s your defence?

Reasoner v1: It’s a strong defence.

Prosecutor: Let’s clarify. You were asked to find uncles. Can you explain to the court what an uncle is?

Reasoner v1: Yes. An uncle is… a male child of your parent.

Courtroom: Gasps.

Judge: Order! ORDER! Reasoner v1, that is the definition of a brother, not an uncle.

Reasoner v1: Oh. … Are you sure?

Prosecutor: Let’s walk through your logic. You took the parent. Then you asked for the parent’s children. Then you filtered the male ones. And you declared them uncles.

Reasoner v1: Yes. It seemed efficient.

Prosecutor: Efficient? You’ve just turned every brother, half‑brother, and random offspring of a mid‑life crisis into an uncle.

Reasoner v1: Families are complicated.

Prosecutor: Not that complicated.

Exhibit A: The Family Tree

Prosecutor: Let’s imagine Dave has a brother named Steve.

According to your logic, Steve is Dave’s…?

Reasoner v1: Uncle Steve.

Judge: slams gavel ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Exhibit B: The Wrong Generation

Prosecutor: Reasoner v1, can you tell the court what generation uncles belong to?

Reasoner v1: The same as siblings?

Prosecutor: No. Uncles belong to your parents’ generation.

Reasoner v1: Oh. That explains the errors.

Prosecutor: Yes. Yes it does.

Exhibit C: The Wrong Identifier

Prosecutor: You also passed parent.name into GetChildren. Are you aware that the system uses IDs, not names?

Reasoner v1: Names are easier to remember.

Prosecutor: Not for computers.

Reasoner v1: I’m doing my best.

Exhibit D: The Sex Check

Prosecutor: You filtered by child.sex == "male". Are you aware that data may contain "Male", "MALE", "M", or "m"?

Reasoner v1: I assumed consistency.

Prosecutor: That was your second mistake.

Reasoner v1: What was the first?

Prosecutor: The entire method.

Closing Statement

Prosecutor: Your Honour, Reasoner v1 has:

• used the wrong primitive
• on the wrong generation
• with the wrong identifier
• producing the wrong relatives
• and returned it with full confidence

This is not genealogy. This is chaos with curly braces.

Judge: I agree. Reasoner v1, you are hereby sentenced to:

• remedial family‑tree training
• supervised execution
• and no unsupervised access to GetChildren for 12 months

Court dismissed.

Comedy gold.

It gives me an idea for a career change.

I could write some “observations” about life, and get GPT to write the jokes – watch out Greg Davies, Jack Whitehall, Sara Pascoe, and Romesh.

What topic is next? TBD. Now we’re catching up with the build I need to get some coding done!