Because that's the theme of The Magicians: Nothing in life turns out the way you expect it, and the more you want something to happen, the more you screw up it up.

But it amused Ember to frustrate so many Children of Earth when the Candy Witch didn't show up as promised.

Julia did have 39 lifetimes at Brakebills to study the fundamentals of magic. If the Dean's Knowledge specialty helped him remember each one of those times, should other Knowledge students (like Julia) has some subconscious knack for remembering fragments of knowledge from past time loops? Or at least having the gift…

Maybe you should give more attention next time. The gods didn't turn off magic just for humans. The niffin monk outright that all creatures of magic are fading away. Humans were some of the least powerful creatures, so they didn't have much magic to trickle away down the bathtub drain in comparison.

No, they said last year that those three books have at least six seasons of show in them: http://www.hollywoodreporte…

I'm well aware there are two different laws. That sounds like a dodge because it does not explain how the second statue doesn't have every right as the first. Equating your opinion with the actual law without quoting actual law sounds another failure of persuasion.

Can you expand on how this isn't the same kind of patronage that the Medicis offered? Same wine, different bottle.

Both of those wants are just your projections. The actual artist wanted to make a statement about women. The bank just signed the check to get some buzz. The bull artist just wanted buzz as well.

Is that where Wall Street hangs Christians in celebration?

So then both statues were placed with proper permits. What's the problem?

His songwriting rights and his right to stand on the street corner are different rights. Standing on the street corner everyday for 30 years does not give any ownership of that street corner.

The showrunners just said that Julia and her shade made the decision together, in the
Inside the Magicians Season 2: Episode 11 clip:
https://youtu.be/TjBZiO5ZLn…

If he takes it back, then who will remember him in another 30 years after his cancer runs its course?

No, the artist has every right to reclaim their statute and place it on land that he owns (perhaps on top his burial plot?). But if he wants it displayed for free on city land, he has to accept the city gets the last word on how it's displayed on city land.

There is no infringement. The bull resides on land that he does not own, so he can reclaim the bull at any time to place it somewhere he does legally own.

The actual placement of the statues is a separate issue from using it in ads. The first about land he does not and has never owned, so he does not have complete control what someone else (the city) does with it. Reproduction rights is not about public space, so he has more complete rights there which I am glad he is…

Bull markets are just irrational exuberance bubbles that haven't popped yet, and that snowball effect of overconfidence leads so many people to buy high.

Charging Bull's meaning and Fearless Girl meaning would be exactly the same even if you put them in Maine. It just wouldn't provoke as many comments in the comment section.

He's complaining that someone on Wall Street is doing what Wall Street is stereotypically known for. "Take every advantage, take no prisoners, etc, etc, etc…" Doesn't he see the irony of a Charging Bull turning on his owner?

So an artist who made a broad on-the-nose icon with all the subtlety of an internet meme about a bull on Wall Street is upset when a major Wall Street firm managing $2.4 trillion in assets decides to have something to say about Wall Street themselves with the second statue? (Since they're actually part of the thing…