The issue is not that the large image was uploaded. The server should always store the highest quality available, and serve whatever resolution is requested by the client.
That depends on how you feel about what constitutes playing a character.
In raw numbers we’ve had Combs play 7 main characters (Brunt, Tiron, Mulkahey, Penk, Krem, Shran, Agimus) that aren’t Weyouns and at least 3 of them that I recall. This discounts his appearances in video games.
Whereas though PT has been on screen a lot, maybe as many times as Combs, it’s worth remembering that stuntpersons aren’t playing the character, they are playing the actor. She was also in Jurassic Park, not as Ellie, but as “Laura Dern’s Stunt Double”.
Edit: an earlier version of this comment started “that’s not strictly true” but I’m not the person who gets to decide that. To me it doesn’t seem true, but to someone else perhaps it does. I changed it because I’m not the arbiter of such things, and to open a comment that way was frankly a bit dickish.
For Combs, I was only counting Weyoun as one character, even if he’s playing multiple copies of him.* And I’m only counting TV and movies, not video games. This also means that Tallman doesn’t get to have her Romulan appearance counted twice because the trading card game turned it into a different character.
For Tallman, I’m not counting any work as a double,** but I am counting her unnamed Starfleet officers that each had the misfortune of being played by a stuntwoman, and therefore tended to die. She gets one redshirt role each in TNG, Generations, DS9 and Voyager. She also plays one of the trilithium thieves from die hard in space, one of the aliens that knocked up a warbird’s engines, an immortalish prisoner in the gamma quadrant, a Bajoran nurse, and one of the space succubi that tried to beat Harry Kim with a large phallic object and drain him of his genetic material.
So, by that count, Tallman has 9 roles while Combs has 8.
Obviously this is a matter of preference and interpretation, and the more you think about it the more you start to open Pandora’s box. Are clones with the same look and personality all the same character? What about clones that are wildly different? What about parallel universe versions? Is a doppelganger added to the count? Or a time travel duplicate? What about body swaps or possessions, do they count as being a different character? What about a character who is playing another character in an in universe fiction? What about versions that appear in dreams or simulations?
** If we’re going to nitpick, I’d argue that stunt doubles are intended to be seen as the character by the audience, so it’s not unreasonable to count them that way, even if I’m not.
I must have missed some Tallman background characters as I had fewer than that before moving on to tallying up her stunting for various main cast. (I checked two sources as I was worried this might be the case but as always Roles, Stunts and Secondary Artist work are not credited equally or properly).
I have my repos on Codeberg and one of the ‘disadvantages’ is that, well, it’s a non-profit, so I genuinely don’t want to waste their resources.
They ask you to only host open-source repos there, meaning that using it for backups of shitty personal projects, even if I would throw in an open-source license, is just out of the question for me.
And that has weirdly been a blessing in disguise. Like, if it’s not useful for humanity to see, do I really care to keep it around forever?
And I’ve had three projects now where I felt an obligation to push them over the finish line of actually making them a useful open-source project. Which had me iron out some of the usability shortcuts I took, made me learn a good amount of code quality stuff and of course, just feels good to complete.
Well, Codeberg is a non-profit. I would say if it’s just a few kilobytes/megabytes of code, upload it and donate $10. That should be enough to store that for decades.
I sometimes look for small stuff. Boilerplate code, how other people configure stuff that isn’t well documented, niche interest stuff even if it’s not finished. Sometimes stuff like that is useful.
That’s why I host all my shitty unfinished projects in a Gitea instance in my VPS. Now they actively cost me money and I feel (a tiny bit) more incentivized to do so something with them!
I was chatting with a friend, and she mentioned how she tries to at least set up a README, which includes her vision for the project and her plan for the implementation, design, and goals.
Best case scenario is that the planning helps her complete the project herself. Worst case scenario, someone else can pick up where she left off and use her considerations for the project.
I’m thinking of doing that for future projects too
A Free Software License is even more important. There are many great projects out there which you can’t modify etc. because the project isn’t distributed with a license (which means “all rights reserved” in most jurisdictions).
Just comment out the window until it is fixed. Either way it isn’t dangerous as long as you surround it with try/catch.
But I don’t know exactly about that catch part if something happens a few miles above.
Every time I commit I have to look through git diff, figure out what the hell I actually did, come up with something intelligent to say about jt, possibly split the commit into multiple commits if I changed multiple things, do some shuffling with git reset and git add…
For some reason all my personal projects are all like 4K SLoC with 50 total commits, all of which include apologies for not doing more smaller commits
Patch add - it shows you particular changes you made, and you choose whether or not to include them in the commit. (You can then use git stash -k to stash only the changes you did not add, so you can test before you commit.)
You see, sometimes I code something, go to bed before finishing it, come back, decide not to commit because then I’d have to think of a commit message and I just want to code, start working on an unrelated feature, do that for a couple days, get distracted by life stuff and put the project down for a few weeks/months, rinse and repeat, and then I finally get around to writing a commit message because I’m about to start a huge change and I want a restore point and I’m like. Okay, it’s been like 3 months since my last commit, I’m pretty sure my code can now do something it couldn’t 3 months ago but come on, I can’t even remember what I had for lunch last Thursday
I’m well aware this is terrible practice but I don’t know how to stop doing it
Commit more often. Maybe work in a different feature branch, and don’t be afraid to commit your half-working crappy code. If it’s a personal project/fork, it’s totally acceptable to commit often with bad commit names and small unfinished changes: you can always amend/squash the commits later. That’s how I tend to work: create a new branch, work on the feature, rebase and merge (fast forward, no merge commit). Also, maybe don’t jump around working on random features :P
You can help yourself a lot here by making commits every time you make a meaningful change. A feature doesn’t need to be complete to commit major checkpoints along the path to completion. That’s what feature branches are for. Commit often. It’ll help you think of messages, and it’ll help you recover in the case of catastrophe.
I just get too excited about actually implementing/fixing something (random things that I see along the way) more than commit ceremony (nobody will care about it in my project anyway other than one random guy who gave the repo a star)
I spend much time splitting them up inside visual studio by file and individual lines changed to try and separate my many simultaneous changes into several somewhat usable commits. If I was stupid enough to make some big refactor at the same time I might just have to throw in the towel… It’s really painful after a few weeks to try and pick up the pieces of what I was doing but never commited too lol.
The full story is actually more nuanced than most people think, but the post is actually very long (about 30min) so thank you in advance if you really find the time to read it.
I really hate the social media discussion about this. And the comments in the past teached me, there are two different ways of learning math in the world.
True, and it’s not only about learning math but that there is actually no consensus even amongst experts, about the priority of implicit multiplications (without explicit multiplication sign). In the blog post there are a lot of things that try to show why and how that’s the case.
@Prunebutt meant 4.5! and not 4.5. Because it’s not an integer we have to use the gamma function, the extension of the factorial function to get the actual mean between 1 and 9 => 4.5! = 52.3428 which looks about right 🤣
I think you got hit hard by Poe’s Law here. Except it’s more like people couldn’t tell if you were jokingly or genuinely getting your math wrong… Even after you explained you were joking lol
If one doesn’t realize you’re op, the entire thing can be interpreted very differently.
Then “Not sure if sarcastic and woosh, or adding to the joke ಠ_ಠ” could be interpreted as something like “I’m not sure if you are adding to the joke and I’m not understanding it”.
🤣 I wasn’t even sure if I should post it on lemmy. I mainly wrote it so I can post it under other peoples posts that actually are intended to artificially create drama to hopefully show enough people what the actual problems are with those puzzles.
But I probably am a fool and this is not going anywhere because most people won’t read a 30min article about those math problems :-)
The order of operations is not part of a holy text that must be blindly followed. If these numbers had units and we knew what quantity we were trying to solve for, there would be no argument whatsoever about what to do. This is a question that never comes up in physics because you can use dimensional analysis to check to see if you did the algebra correctly. Context matters.
It’s not ambiguous, it’s just that correctly parsing the expression requires more precise application of the order of operations than is typical. It’s unclear, sure. Implicit multiplication having higher precedence is intuitive, sure, but not part of the standard as-written order of operations.
I’d really like to know if and how your view on that matter would change once you read the full post. I know it’s very long and a lot of people won’t read it because they “already know” the answer but I’m pretty sure it would shift your perception at least a bit if you find the time to read it.
My opinion hasn’t changed. The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be. It’s not necessarily followed strictly in practice, but it’s easier to view such examples as normal deviation from the rules instead of an implicit disagreement about the rules themselves. For example, I know how to “properly” capitalize my sentences too, and I intentionally do it “wrong” all the time. To an outsider claiming my capitalization is incorrect, I don’t say “I am using a different standard,” I just say “Yes, I know, I don’t care.” This is simpler because it accepts the common knowledge of the “normal” rules and communicates a specific intent to deviate. The alternative is to try to invent a new set of ad hoc rules that justify my side, and explain why these rules are equally valid to the ones we both know and understand.
They weren't asking you if there are two sets of rules, we're in a thread that's basically all qbout the Weak vs. Strong juxtaposition debate, they asked you which you consider correct.
Giving the answer to a question they didn't ask to avoid the one they did is immature.
I can't have stopped because I never started, because I'm not even married... See, even I can answer your bad faith question better than you answered the one @onion asked you.
But I will give it to you that my comment should've stipulated avoiding reasonable questions.
The difference is that there are two sets of rules already in use by large groups of people, so which do you consider correct?
However I still think you need your eyes checked, as the end of this comment by @onion is very clearly a question asking you WHICH ruleset you consider correct.
Unless you're refusing the notion of multiplication by juxtaposition entirely, then you must be on one side of this or the other.
“Which ruleset do you consider correct” presupposes, as the comment said, that there are 2 rulesets. There aren’t. There’s the standard, well known, and simplified model which is taught to kids, and there’s the real world, where adults communicate by using context and shared understanding. Picking a side here makes no sense.
When the @onion said there were two different sets of rules, you know as well as I do that they meant strong vs. weak juxtaposition.
You're right that in reality nobody would write an equation like this, and if they did they would usually provide context to help resolve it without resorting to having to guess...
But the point of this post is exactly to point out this hole that exists in the standard order of operations, the drama that has resulted from it, and to shine some light on it.
Picking a side makes no sense only if you have the context to otherwise resolve it... If you were told to solve this equation, and given no other context to do so, you would either have to pick a side or resolve it both ways and give both answers. In that scenario, crossing your arms and refusing to because "it doesn't make sense" would get you nowhere.
In all honesty, I think you're acting like the people who say things like "I've never used algebra, so it was worthless teaching me it as a kid" as though there aren't people who would learn something out of this.
I'll just say it again, you're the one saying this problem is completely unambiguous, with your only explanation as to why being that real people communicate as though that solves every edge case imaginable.
I'm just saying, if you really believe that to be the case, Good luck.
programming.dev
Oldest