ddawn23

He was indentured to a guy who liked to punish him by boxing his ears, which severely damaged his hearing and rendered him functionally deaf. Having his tonsils out improved his hearing, although it’s not clear how much.

Good lord it’s tiring to have to wade through this again. Not to mention how laughably anachronistic the season one witch trial was. And that was a quarter century ago at this point!

This is correct. In addition to ordination the Church of England requires parish ministers to be licensed. Without his license Leonard is barred from any work as clergy.

I want to know what sort of phone battery lasts as long as the police officer’s. I kept waiting for his phone dying to be a plot point.

The music during the ball was diegetic. There was a live band with three white-clad singers.

You waited patiently through three seasons to whip this bad boy out and I. am. here. for. it.

It was a disjointed mishmash of Revelation 21:4, Isaiah 41:10, Isaiah 40:11, Zechariah 8:5, Malachi 3:17, Revelation 7:1, and Revelation 14:13. All KJV, of course.

It’s 1771. Claire says it’s 157 years before the discovery of penicillin, which was in 1928.

I can’t speak to the aging of the children or the buildup of the settlement, but if it’s 157 years before Fleming discovers penicillin in 1928, that makes it 1771.

In what way is it higher end? There is absolutely no way a person who says "I want to start a side hustle. I know! I'll join this startup and teach flower arranging" is more experienced than the person the local craft store brings in to teach classes. I also don't understand how one could be considered more local than the other. They're both area residents who work for larger companies. We're not talking about the difference between McDonald's and Joe's Burgers. We're talking the difference between a woman who sells Mary Kay and a woman who sells Estee Lauder. They're equally local and the woman behind the counter at Dillard's is almost certainly more experienced.

The second hour was the episode of solving problems that don't exist. Lactation bars and cookies are as easy to make as chocolate chip cookies, and there are a million recipes on Pinterest. Ain't nobody drinking six cups of lactation tea a day. And flower arranging classes are like $10 or $20 at your local Michael's or Hobby Lobby. I'm not sure how the flower class business was actually supposed to work with the stated goal of empowering women to open their own offshoot businesses. Flower classes was just supposed to be a test market of sorts. So what, 1: Get women to do MLM-style party flower arranging events. 2: ??? 3: Multifaceted women-centric national business with a bunch of non flower-related income streams. What am I missing?

I can't even with that first paragraph. From the earliest age girls with an interest in science and math are discouraged from pursuing it. Remember that old Simpsons episode with the talking Malibu Stacy doll who says "Math is hard! Teeheehee!"? It really is like that. It's subtler, but the effect is the same. We as a society benefit when everyone is able to contribute to their fullest potential. Diversity is important, and one way to promote diversity is to stop telling girls that STEM is for boys. And STEM remaining the domain of men is a huge factor in the gender pay gap. I fail to see how encouraging STEM-minded girls to explore that interest is pushing them into fields they don't have the inclination for. Absolutely no one is advocating that we force coding down children's throats. The push to see more STEM-type toys marketed to girls is about telling the brainy girls that it's okay to be interested in science-- that they don't have to choose between their gender and their interests. Of course JavaScript isn't the first lesson. You start by teaching the concept that coding is writing a set of instructions for a computer to execute. When I was in elementary school in the early 90s we played around with Logo with turtle graphics. This is the same thing, but manipulating an object IRL instead of on a screen. And the interface looked functionally identical to basically every other coding program geared toward children. Example: Google's Blockly.

The wine-enthusiast group Kevin is in is Chevaliers du Tastevin, literally Knights of the Tastevin. A tastevin is a small shallow silver cup that was used in the middle ages to judge wine quality. The way everyone immediately reached for their glasses whenever the Chevaliers du Tastevin was mentioned makes me think footage of the sharks agreeing to make a drinking game out of it was left on the cutting room floor. Obvious problem with the lawn mowing robot: I don't know how it is where you guys are, but here in Oklahoma I'd say 95% of houses have two yards: a front yard and a backyard, and the backyard is usually fenced. I would need to either always keep the gate open, which would mean keeping my dog in the house at all times, or I would need two mowerbots. And the front yard mowerbot would definitely get stolen. About the bot only mowing a little bit each day: They tried to frame that as a product feature, but I'm not buying it. Cutting only a little each time means the bot can be smaller without gumming up the works. It also allows the consumer to rationalize the expense-- "Yeah, it was expensive, but look! I use it every day!" On to the stuffed animal ladies. "It's half stuffed animal, half blankie! We call them loveys!" No. You don't call them loveys. That's what they are. That's their name. You did not invent loveys. All you did was add a storybook and raise the price by an order of magnitude. And I'm sorry, but your line of loveys all look like dog toys. I got the sense they were justifying the ridiculous price by promising the toy would be the one the kid loves the most. That's not how it works. Your child will have many stuffed toys. One of those will be the favorite-- the one they take everywhere, the one they cherish even into adulthood. You as the child's parent will have absolutely no say in which of their stuffed toys becomes The One.

That would be an excellent argument if telenovelas were known for giving adult-level cognition to children young enough not to have object permanence, but they’re not, so it’s not. Jane the Virgin’s ability to incorporate ridiculous soap opera tropes into the plot without seeming insane or losing any of the show’s intelligence or charm is one of its biggest strengths. You won’t see me dissing that aspect of the show. It’s perfectly fine that Mateo and Adam’s talk didn’t bother you. It’s also perfectly fine that it did bother me.

I assumed the narrator meant one of those characters would die by the end of the season. I’m surprised everyone seems to have liked Mateo’s talk with Adam. I hated it. Remember in About a Boy when Hugh Grant’s character makes up a kid and it’s obvious he made the kid up because he attributes absurd interpersonal insight and English language mastery to a toddler? That’s what this was. We’re supposed to believe that a one-year-old noticed his mother crying a lot, correctly attributed her upset to the loss of her romantic partner, retained this information three years, surmised that a breakup with her new romantic partner would elicit the same response in his mother that the death of the last one did, asked to speak with the new partner privately, and expressed his concerns in a few concise and perfectly constructed sentences. Nope. That’s hack writing. They chose to obliterate the already tenuous suspension of disbelief in regards to Mateo’s characterization in the name of being cutesy and twee. Ugh.