Amarsir

I think in Mark's defense a bit, he has been consistently aware of the "show" aspect of Shark Tank. He was the one who pushed ABC to remove their 3% cut, and then has taken it on himself to challenge those he sees as "gold diggers". So I think he see's it as a responsibility of the sharks to not let snake oil pitches go unchallenged. That said, if you go for an hour and still have questions, maybe you have to accept it's not the right format and you can handle the rest in due diligence. It's not reasonable of him to keep dominating that much of the time. It was bad for the viewing and the other sharks, and still didn't really resolve it to his satisfaction.

Now this was a real followup. There must be something else we didn't quite see that drained the 3 locations and caused the original owners to leave. Something in their ownership structure that they didn't want on TV. But good riddance to them both. Neither seemed like they really wanted to work. Partnering with Sweet Petes makes sense, and as I recall they were already stocking Sweet Pete's brand at Farrell's after the first makeover. I can see co-branding and having the layout work that way. But the toys feel a little "kitchen sink", especially when they mentioned expanding to socks, pajamas, etc. Give it a year and I expect that to be filled with unsold merchandise, dirtied from the air of food prep and traffic. But considering the costs for everything else, I guess he can take a little hit there to figure out what works or doesn't.

Lori: "I hate coins. I don't even like to carry money. So I totally get your product." Um, no you don't. If you don't carry money, you have no use for his product. He's only going after people who DO like bills but DON'T like coins. (Which has the additional burden of going the opposite way of how Europe is and how some want us to go - replacing the $1 bill with a coin.) I think the product was silly and was at best a gimmicky way of moving sideways into the payment provider space. That said, I didn't mind the guy. He certainly exuded confidence, but it wasn't "I'm awesome and you should be delighted to work with me" arrogance. He believed in the business (again, wrongly) and fought pointedly on its behalf. Whenever Sharks offer a shot clock, we the audience often say "they should want a partner who hears all the offers." Well, they should also want a partner who fights strongly for the business. The phrase "with all due respect" certainly pushed into overuse, but overall I don't think he was anywhere near some of the obnoxious pitchers we've seen. Similarly yet at the other end of the spectrum, I didn't mind the sisters either. Yes, their pitch was silly. But that's what ABC wants; it's what gets you on the show. Very importantly, they were able to turn it off. The annoying overly-energetic entrepreneurs that bug are the ones who keep going at level 11 the whole time. They knew what they were doing and when not to, and that's fine with me. Also I don't mind them agreeing to sell since it's probably the right outcome. That sort of thing doesn't come up frequently, but it's valid when it does.

All very labor intensive. But Kovacs was able to obtain a mobile cloning machine and have one completely made in a few hours. The best we could say is that the cost of biomaterials is prohibitive, if human cells need to be slowly and painstakingly grown before being organized into a sleeve. But it doesn't make any economic sense that society isn't organized around producing as much of those as possible. Then there is the possibility that economics isn't allowed to be relevant because of prohibitive laws. After all, it is explicitly stated when the son's machine is found that they are are illegal. But if it's as easy as that, then black market sleeves would be far more profitable than the sex services that seemed to make up 90% of this world's economy. There's no getting around the fact that most people would want them, but they all seemed to just shrug and go "meh, what are you gonna do?" Similarly, it's easy to accept that overpopulation would be a serious issue when one can be effectively immortal. But I don't see how that jives with a hotel that's been without customers for 50 years. It's elements of the story that don't jive. I think the concept of stacks and sleeves is great, and there are a ton of societal aspects that opens up, many of which were explored. But I also think the depraved, pessimistic story they wanted to tell doesn't fit well with such an invention and that's why a lot of these premises don't fit well together.

I want to know how she said “I don’t remember” for how she died, and that is confirmed to be true by being evidence of her being backed up, yet she knew what her last words to Quinn were.

The hard ass police chief is such a trope. Literally in 10 seconds he went from "Don't tell me unless you're 100% sure" to "Why didn't you tell me about this sooner?" It was funny but I don't think it was meant to be, so I'm hoping that with the payoff revelation we won't have to deal with him anymore. Does this world not have self-driving cars, or did Kovacs just circumvent it so he could break the traffic laws? The latter seems to be a sci-fi staple as well, but I could do without it.

Yeah, so what bothered me is that the time jumps seemed to be in-your-face. They wanted it big enough to be dramatic. A vastly futuristic society in a few noteworthy ways but mostly similar. "On ice for 150 years, it's a new world and nobody remembers him!" Except he fits in way too well. Someone from 1868 transported to today would be at a complete loss. But Kovacs has expertise with all the current weapons, technology, and culture? Enough to cleverly select which hotel to stay at? The statement of how well an envoy drops into society might be meant to cover this, but it's too much of a handwave. It seems like they wanted a time spread so distant that we wouldn't try to connect them ... and yet they're trying to connect them. Similarly, no guests for 50 years? That crowded city just has all this empty space with the AI ready to go - and running ads on the street no less - for 50 years. That's daring me to not take it seriously. Make it a shorter time and I'm fine ignoring it and just accepting this empty building is at his disposal. Slap me in the face with a ridiculous amount of time and suddenly I find the economics more far-fetched than the tech. Work with me here, show. That said, I love the sci fi premise and am generally a sucker for a good noir story. Also while I have no idea how the story ends, there was enough potential foreshadowing dropped into this first episode that I can see a couple ways it could have happened and would be happy with any of them that the clues were laid out fairly. A single premise (stacks) thoroughly explored is makes for a great story to me.

The show is on hold until after the Olympics.

Can you explain it to me then? Solar cookers are literally centuries old, so clearly the only new thing here was this battery-type-thing she briefly mentioned. But I really had no idea what she was getting at.

Nothing that interesting here. I've seen so many versions of fruit in water bottles, and while their screw addition to squeeze it is new I also feel like it would be a pain to clean. Maybe the surfboard was decent. I don't know; not my market.

I think text on screen at the end that says "actually the deal didn't close" would only raise more questions than it answers. The problem to me is that they're overstating the commitment in the first place. "Here's my check" is actually not a release of the check, and not just in this case where he laid a contingent but every case. So it always seems they're further along then they are, and thus the show gets into this spot where they already aren't representing properly. That's not even a schedule problem, it's just them overstating for drama.

Problems all over this business. She really did need his discipline. There's a deleted scene where it turns out the "16 oz packages" they were selling only contained about 10 ounces. A copacker will at least save them from lying to customers. Andre really seemed like he was trying to shift over to Marcus's side, put his arm around him, and say "So you better shape up like Marcus and I." Now I don't know if that was sexism, or being star struck, or just being sick of this businesses's problems and wanting an ally. It was rudely delivered and Marcus was right to call him out on it. And yet every time Marcus added "but you're not wrong..." The stuff tastes good and the inventory looked pretty well organized to me. I can see how she makes a good first impression to investors. Thus I hope we get a quick follow-up to confirm if the deal tanked and why.

I definitely got the sense there was a lot of real drama we didn't see. And there is 0% that they didn't know she was quitting before that elimination. Which to me is why Asaf wasn't on the chopping block and Brandon was. I rewound to hear: Brandon was planning to make his own mayonnaise. What "worst chef in America" makes their own mayo? It wasn't in Anne's original recipe either. And then his error was putting a whole garlic clove on, which is something "worst chef" would do but is a pretty easy sabotage of a meal that's going well. I feel like they wanted him to look more at risk than he actually was. Now whether that's because he goes all the way or they just like his goofy talking heads, I don't know.

The idea that "food deserts" are a causal problem is largely being debunked. The new trendy term is "food swamp", which IMHO is just another attempt to avoid saying "healthy food isn't sold because people don't want it". Having a long distance to travel to a supermarket is no doubt an impediment to lifestyle, but it's much more the result of these neighborhoods than the cause. Three bags of groceries once a week is a trip, but compared to going to fast food 21 times during that week it's not only cheaper and healthier but probably less back-and-forth. That said, I totally wish these guys the best. It's perfectly rational to charge different price points in different neighborhoods, especially if rents are lower in the more poverty-stricken ones. And neighborhood aside, why don't we have more fast food chains that consider health from the ground up? Sure I can get a McDonald's garden salad, but I want more from the restaurant than to be an afterthought. And if you aren't careful, it's easy to add 300 calories to a salad just by choosing the wrong dressing. I think reality is going to be tough for them though. They may not get the volume they want or have other problems associated with less-desirable neighborhoods. But the real problem will be when they inevitably have a downturn and a couple bad quarters. If the whole business is losing money, which store gets closed: the one charging $4 a salad or the one charging $8? To my recollection, Mark hasn't said he's gluten-free but rather that some of his players are and so he looks toward investing in it. It may be that he also tries to go low-gluten as in low-carb, but he 100% does not have an allergy nor has that been his claim.

English doesn't just borrow from other languages. It drags them into a back alley and steals their internal organs. In this case, both words come from Latin through French via the word "deservir". As Latin was much more broad and context-driven, the word was about having finished service and having served well. Via French the parts of speech became more specific and the use more symbolic. You don't need to be in service to "deserve" something. And that which you deserve would be your "desert". * Meanwhile, if you've finished a meal then that service is done and you are ready for your "dessert". Same root origin but split via France and their love of table service. (A lot of our meal words and customs specifically are taken from French. For example, blame them for us using "entrée" not to refer to the first part of the meal but the main course which would arrive via a grand entrance.) The confusion is therefore perfectly reasonable, as both are talking about the same thing with a fair bit of metaphor. Of course the word "desert" itself is archaic and odd. But then so are moral philosophers. :) * P.S. Making it even more complicated would be those who left without having earned their reward. They would be "deserters", and would be forsaken by society much like a barren "desert" would be forsaken by nature.

Of course they're not on Earth. They're in Australia. Although timelines are clearly flexible on this show, I think this path solidifies them a little in relation to each other. We never really knew if the 4 humans had died around the same time. Or even if they were the age we see when they died, as opposed to just looking that way in the afterlife. But if they are able to meet up then things are pretty much as they appear. And presumably Chidi was saved from death offscreen, but we don't know yet if he received any pre-Eleanor nudges toward good behavior. If the plan is to have them all meet up, I'd say the easy one is already done. Tahani might cross paths with them randomly as she does a lot of traveling. But Jason is pretty much in his own universe - in more ways than one.

I actually think Joe's deal was quite decent. He started at 25%, not 40. Marcus bought in for half, which would reduce Rocco and Joe to 37.5 / 12.5%. But Joe got 30% of his capital back and only lost an additional 20% of his equity. Considering that passive investors have never come out of deals with Marcus particularly well, I wouldn't complain about that one.

Those electrical plugs were the kind of big deal we don't see very often. If that becomes the standard it could be the biggest success in any version of Dragons Den / Shark Tank. I wasn't intrigued at all by the beauty products either, but they got a couple offers so it must have been more compelling in person.

I agree with everything here, and yet I still liked Rocco better than the DiLascia guy. It wouldn't surprise me if they both end the same way though. (Shutting down for a loss.)

And now that the impulsiveness has been pointed out, it's easy to see how consistent they've been with his character. Jason frequently calls "dibs" on something (like Optimus Prime's right nipple) before it's established what they're even talking about. Yeah it's played for a joke, but that also establishes he does whatever he feels like without regard to anything else - including facts, the feelings of others, etc. Now that its established I look forward to seeing character growth from him.

They have to hit a new plateau, but more likely at the start of Season 3 than next episode. Like how "pretend to be tortured" version was the status quo for a while and that allowed them to explore relationships and grow. The problem right now, in addition to what you say, is that the plot is struggling to not grow the characters. Most obviously with Chidi. Last week he couldn't lie, despite having done so through the season. And here he couldn't choose a hat for 82 minutes? Funny, but after what Chidi's seen he must be dumber than Jason if if he thought the test was actually about which hat. I don't know how they resolve it other than a purgatory-like place. But I'm game to find out. No surprises have really disappointed me yet.

This. "Basic" would be completely unoriginal, "Extra" would be over-the-top. Eleanor did of course use the word early on in her stay so Michael's had plenty of opportunity to learn it. Interesting. I would put my fingers in my ears and try very hard not to even look at the nameplates on the doors, preferring to think that no one has an opinion about me at all. But then that clearly wouldn't be my particular test. I really like it being framed as impulsiveness now. It's a lot easier to see that as a sin than just being dumb, and it was certainly set up previously but not called out explicitly.

For what it's worth, I think with the kind of guys in his target market you'd have a couple problems continuing the relationship. The choice of West Hollywood for a store location was probably not random either.

Can anyone remember the last time Daymond was in on a clothing deal? Was it the weight clothing he mentioned regarding padding during the first episode? I feel like he specifically avoids clothing now and maybe had a bad experience. IANAL but as I understand it, California has much lower standards for filing a class-action lawsuit. Elsewhere (particularly in Federal courts) you need to have a decent number of names and some evidence that the claims should be aggregated before the case can be opened. At that point a class action suit is opened and published, and others can publicly join in. In California it only takes 1 person to open a class action case, with the belief that others were affected and should join in. Now if it doesn't get a certain number eventually (I've heard 20-50) it will likely be kicked out eventually with instructions to file a traditional suit. But in the meantime it's open for signup. Now the thing about class action lawsuits is that they are much more troublesome for the defendant. The plaintiffs don't have to get involved at all other than signing up. Specialized lawyers do the work (and get a huge chunk of the settlement). And they're usually worse for reputation. Specific to this Zuvaa pitch, as I recall it's a platform for numerous designers to have their patterns seen and purchased. The obvious vulnerability is someone saying "This pattern is way too close to my design. They copied me!" And instead of / in addition to suing the designer in Nigeria, they sue Daymond John and the company he (partly) owns. No guarantees that will happen of course, but it's plausible he'd want to stay out. I thought of the exact same similarity. I don't think it's necessarily a millennial thing as kids have been getting spoiled forever, although admittedly it has taken a different spin via the self-esteem movement. I laughed. No one misses Sears.