diff --git a/_posts/2014-07-09-javascript-constructor-problem.md b/_posts/2014-07-09-javascript-constructor-problem.md
index bda51c7c6..9da93a4cf 100644
--- a/_posts/2014-07-09-javascript-constructor-problem.md
+++ b/_posts/2014-07-09-javascript-constructor-problem.md
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ snafu.concatenated()
   //=> 'Situation Normal All Fsked Up'
 {% endhighlight %}
 
-Now it works, but of course `snafu` is an instance of `Fubar`, not of `LoggingFubar`. Is that what you want? Who knows!? This isn't a justification for the pattern, as much as an explanation that it is a useful, but leaky abstraction. It's doesn't "just work," but it can make certain things possible (like decorating constructors) that are otherwise even more awkward to implement.
+Now it works, but of course `snafu` is an instance of `Fubar`, not of `LoggingFubar`. Is that what you want? Who knows!? This isn't a justification for the pattern, as much as an explanation that it is a useful, but leaky abstraction. It doesn't "just work," but it can make certain things possible (like decorating constructors) that are otherwise even more awkward to implement.
 
 ### solution: overload its meaning
 
@@ -253,4 +253,4 @@ var arrayOfSevereProblems = problems.filter(Fubar.is);
 
 There you have it: Constructors that fail when called without `new` are a potential problem, and three solutions we can use are, respectively, auto-instantiation, overloading the constructor, or killing such calls with fire.
 
-(discuss on [reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/2acr9f/a_javascript_constructor_problem_and_three/))
\ No newline at end of file
+(discuss on [reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/2acr9f/a_javascript_constructor_problem_and_three/))