The trains arrive equally often, but the puzzle doesn't tell us about the gap between them. Since this is a subway story, let's pretend we're in London and mind the gap.

I didn't say he was alive. But probably the huge pile of groceries Archer asked him to pick up and then forgot about.

Woodhouse is in the elevator.

I just can't see this working without Dino DeLaurentis's eye for cheese. Maybe, MAYBE you could get Tarsem Singh involved somehow- but NOT as a director. Just make sure he's there to get the look and feel right.

Commander: HAHAHAH! NOW, WE WAIT!
Destro: For what?
Commander: FOR JOE CON. ALL THE JOES WILL BE THERE.
Destro: Ah, and then we strike elsewhere while they're distracted?
Commander: NO YOU FOOL! WE USE THIS KEY TO LOCK THE CITY BEHIND THEM. THEY'LL BE TRAPPED! TRAPPED FOREVER! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA!
Destro: *facepalm*

Okay, I know pretty much nothing about the Divergent stuff, other than that it's some YA-dystopia books turned into a movie… but that poster is fucking gorgeous.

I spent most of The Babadook assuming she just had a brain tumor and it was causing episodes. I get that it's actually a metaphor for grief, but it also works really well as a woman losing her mind.

In the end, yes. But you don't have to bite off the whole thing all at once. There's an obvious pattern to how the list is structured, so we can work our way up to 10 items by solving easier versions of the same problem, starting with a 1-item version. This is known as "inductive reasoning", and it's a powerful tool…

Inside a wormhole, you're eternally alone.

To be pedantic, this applies for all N greater than 1. The behavior is undefined for N=1 (since it creates a self-contradictory statement).

Those claims are following from my initial inductive proof. In a list of size X, X is self contradicting, and each statement less than X contradicts all the statements before it (because of the exactly). This means that X-1 statements are false, and statement X-1 is the only statement that claims X-1 statements are…

However, sometimes induction isn't the best method

What do you mean "the list always has 10 items." I can make a list with one item, very easily. Watch:

It a list of one element, where the only element is "Exactly one of these statements is false," that statement is self contradicting. That's what I meant, when I said, "Let's do this inductively." "Here are rules that govern a list of ten items. What happens when we have a list of 1 item? 2 items? 3 items?"

Let's do this inductively. Let's start with one statement.

Arkham Horror, Castle Panic, Forbidden Island- all great cooperative board games.

Y'know what, Keith David really does make everything better. I'm going to fire up the old video editing software suite and inject his character from The Thing into Aliens.

PUT. THE GLASSES. ON!

35, I don't fit into any of those categories. Bullitt is fucking amazing. It's every cop movie I've ever seen, but it was the originator.

IT WAS THE CAR FROM BULLIT! IT WAS KEITH DAVID! CCH POUNDER! THIS WAS THE BEST EPISODE OF EVERYTHING EVER, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT IN ARCHER HAD HIS TACTICAL TURTLENECK! PERFECT!