u/teke367

I updated today, and since then when I have Wi-Fi on, the search bar will not work when I'm on Wi-Fi. I get a screen that says I'm offline immediately. Every other app works. If I open Chrome and search it works.

I googled and tried all the suggested things, turned off private DNS , toggled airplane mode, forgot the Wi-Fi networks and relogged in, restarted the phone but nothing works.

Everything I found online gives results about Wi-Fi not working at all, but for me it's only if I use the Google bar. I even cleared cache from the Google app.

Any other things I should try?

I updated today, and since then when I have Wi-Fi on, the search bar will not work when I'm on Wi-Fi. I get a screen that says I'm offline immediately. Every other app works. If I open Chrome and search it works.

I googled and tried all the suggested things, turned off private DNS , toggled airplane mode, forgot the Wi-Fi networks and relogged in, restarted the phone but nothing works.

Everything I found online gives results about Wi-Fi not working at all, but for me it's only if I use the Google bar. I even cleared cache from the Google app.

Any other things I should try?

Sometimes I think to myself "why is everybody so high on this move or that move" when the person who fell for it was just really dumb to do so. Which got me thinking, does the "mark" being an idiot impact how you vote the big move?

There's plenty I haven't watched yet (though I didn't care about spoilers), but it seems like the black widows get a lot of credit for convincing Eric to give up immunity, but Russell doesn't get as much for telling Tyson he's voting Parv (which leads to Tyson changing his vote).

Both victims were dumb to fall for it. And frankly, I think Russell's move has a bigger impact (unless you think Eric would've won the rest of the immunity challenges which was definitely possible). Without Russell's move, the only finalist that even makes the merge is Sandra probably.

Yet I don't see Russell getting as much props for his move (I see Tyson get flack though).

I understand saying "the victim was just dumb", not that would apply to both.

So, do you think the victim being dumb negates a big move?

So now they're on peacock I've been catching up on the Canadian series and just finished the second season.

​

The faithful tried their hardest to be the worst group, even worse than Australia s2. While I think they fell short of being the *worst* it was a hell of a lot closer than I thought it could ever be after watching Australia.

​

The pro? I think Karine really grew into the role of host. I wasn't too impressed with her in season 1 (not bad but I didn't think she was special) but in 2 she found her footing. Every host has one thing they excel at, and she is the best at laying into horrible faithful. I'm 2 episodes into S3 and she's completely turned around from season 1 IMO, and season 2 is where that turn started

​

I *almost* felt bad for the traitors. They get the dream role, extra control over the game, but it turned out the faithful were so aggressively bad they never really had the chance to be a factor. I can't call them good traitors either, because their impact was so small.

​

I know some people like the mess, but for me watching people just fail kind of loses it's luster.

​

It seemed from the edit that the early season Canadian players had more understanding of the actual game than early season players of other franchises on peacock. Which makes it worse. Sure the US season 1 faithful were horrible but they hardly knew what show they were going on.

​

And side note, is The Traitors Canada trying to end the reputation of Canadians being nice? I swear all the seasons have come off a lot more nasty than any others on peacock (aside from that one psychopath from Australia)

I know the answer is "it depends" so feel free to add context.

So I'm currently watching Traitors Canada s2 cast work their asses off trying to be the worst faithful since Australia s2.

But I noticed that the edit included a lot of confessionals where the person mentions the three people they think are traitors.

Now many of them mentioned (the obvious one) and two others that are way off. But it got me wondering, when a faithful mentions who they think are Traitors, what is your metric to decide if you think they are good at picking them out.

Like, if somebody gets a good read on one traitor who nobody else clocks, but the other two are way off, do you think they're good?

Do they need to have clocked two? Suggesting that given three guesses and confessionals being no stakes one isn't enough.

Do you think it's so context dependent that this conversation is pointless?

I feel like Canada leaves so much gameplay in the edit that it allows a faithful to play poorly, but still have it documented that they at least had some good reads. Unfortunately, at least for the first 18 episodes (all of season 1 and 80% of season 2) nobody benefited and really were just bad.

Thoughts?

I call myself "formerly gifted" semi facetiously. Basically I was identified as a child, placed into an accelerated program and all that. It's been years since I've been tested and I'm not trying to trample on anybody's definition of gifted.

Either way, my son tests well beyond where I ever was. I joke that he's the OP Universal Threat in a comic book, and at best I'm that same character when they're rolled into regular continuity and have to tone them down.

He's on the spectrum. Not trying to self diagnose but I wouldn't be surprised if I was, I just never was tested as back in the 80s they weren't testing people like me (verbal, *some* social else etc).

You'd think it would be easier, but I'm finding it having it's own hurdles. While I understand plenty his POV, I find myself thinking about how I handled similar scenarios. Being similar but not all the way alike. I have to catch myself. I feel like I do a decent job at it, but parenting with or without anybody being gifted is going to make you doubt yourself.

So my question, anybody here gifted with children who are gifted, but not gifted the same way? Anything you do to keep yourself for assuming you know *exactly* what they're dealing with?