Why is it “inexplicable” that I would choose to play a male Eivor? I’ll happily play games with female protagonists, and in games where you have a choice and the choice makes a difference in terms of game play or story then I might play through twice (though I probably won’t replay a whole 80 hour game for two new cut…

I don’t really know anything about prenups or estate law, but I can imagine a situation where Greg gets very little in a divorce but still stands to inherit if Tanya dies.

I like it. It’s not a high concept show like The Good Place or Community, but it’s a perfectly good family sitcom with actors who are old pros.

Maybe Michael Fishman has a skeleton in his closet that is about to come out, but this is probably just a creative decision. DJ is barely even on the show anyway, and they still barely find time to give good plots to everyone. Dropping his appearances per season from four to zero just isn’t that big of a deal.

Whatever else there is to say about this, “begs” seems like an overly strong description of the language used in the email.

Why not? What if Charlie was played by a 35 year old actor? Would it matter then? If you say yes you acknowledge that it’s a matter of degree, and I say 14 and 17 are different enough developmentally that 17 playing 14 looks weird and lessens the show a little. Again, I still liked it overall.

I enjoyed the series a lot, but I refuse to give it any points for casting actors “not in their 20s” to play teens. The actors are still 3+ years older than the characters they play, and those three years represents a lot of physical and emotional differences during adolescence.

It’s a good show. My one complaint about it is the lack of boy characters, not because “Oh no I can’t identify with girls” but because I wish boys got to see similarly nuanced portrayals of themselves on TV.

Kids love super meta Hollywood parodies.

The dead mother never bothered me much, but breaking up Robin and Barney was a travesty.

It wasn’t very good, but I found its aggressively retro 90s vibe to be comforting. But it was a weird match for HBOMax. I doubt there’s much will to save it, but if there was it really ought to go somewhere with more PG rated sitcom fare.

I don’t know. I often like Kyle’s stuff on SNL, but that 82 second promo felt really long.

Surprised to see so many people putting this in the meh or worse category. I thought it was the best of the season. There were two great sketches (“Dog Head Man” and “Republican or Not”) and one very good one (“First Asian”). There were weak spots (the cold open, “Karaoke Round Up”, “911"), but no real stinkers. And…

I agree with that too.

People didn’t laugh at Johnson’s Trump because it wasn’t funny. Yes, it was technically very good, and the loopy choplogic topic switches were well written. But the precision ruined the comedy by making Trump seem too smart and engaged. That’s the problem with injecting too much cleverness into a Trump impression:…

What’s with the negativity? This sounds like an unambiguously good advancement of science that at best will save lives and/or quality of life and at worst just leaves us where we started.

I’m all for to err is human, don’t be a dick, yes tip as usual. But I have to say the “Should I tip more?” baffles me.

I don’t have much hope of that, but I second your finger crossing.

Yeah, $14 for 5.5 oz of cookies is a good deal.

Yeah, $14 for 5.5 oz of cookies is a good deal.

Can someone please explain the central metaphor of “Chasing Waterfalls”? In what way is coping with HIV or inner city violence like chasing waterfalls? What does “chasing waterfalls” even mean? Unless we’re looking at geologic time scales, waterfalls are pretty stationary; they don’t seem to be all that chasable.