Kinda. You can’t define a name, but you can get the compiler to interpret literals as a function. If you have a Num instance for (Integer -> Integer) where,
fromInteger i = x -> x * i
the compiler can interpret integer literals as functions like so
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).
More recent scholarship on cargo cults has challenged the suitability of the term for the movements associated with it, with recent anthropological sources arguing that the term is born of colonialism and prejudice and does not accurately convey the nature of the movements to which it refers.
It wasn’t pseudoscience, it was just given a colonial-centric name that reinforces the view of uncontacted or even just aboriginal peoples as “savage” or “uncivilized”. The described phenomenon is a real thing.
no I agree I don’t think it’s racist to reference the fact that people from non industrial societies don’t understand how our supply chains work. Why would they. That’s not them being dumb it’s them not having detailed knowledge without being taught. It’s not reasonable to expect someone to deduce the existence of Bristol from a blue vase
Every movement has its participants and its leaders - whether they meant to be, or simply were by virtue of their actions and position. Imo, there is nothing more human than the genuine and wholesome acknowledgment of those who paved the way for us. As well as raising awareness about the negative impacts of systemic oppression.
We rely on sharing lived experiences to raise awareness: about how society needs to change, mental health issues, learning differences, diversity, and so on.
Some might be overly sensitive about such things, due to many negative cults of personality in recent times. However, don’t let those negative experiences affect the present positive one: Aaron Swartz and the negative consequences of systemic oppression.
I really wish movie makers would drop the ‘smoking is {cool,badass,…whatever} trope.’ I’m happy whenever I find that a whole cast never touches a cigarett on camera (think, How I Met Your Mother or The Big Bang Theory)
How I Met Your Mother literally had an episode only about smoking, revealing that everybody in the main group has smoked at one point, and they all do in that episode.
Besides that, isn't the "smoking is cool" phase in movies a thing of the past already? Most movies don't show anyone smoking, and if, I would say it's most often not the hero, but often some shady guys.
They are eating sandwiches when they are smoking weed. They are smoking actual cigarettes when they are smoking cigarettes. Ted's kids are shocked when they learn this, I don't remember them reacting to the sandwich stories.
I know that episode. And the message, in red bold face across the screen for the entire episode is “Don’t smoke.” That’s different from the on-screen smoking I’m talking about.
Characters can be shady without smoking. Just because they’re not the hero, the appeal of ‘being shady’ and the incentive to look to them as a role model doesn’t vanish.
Though the application overall is stable and usable, it should not be considered safe for critically important work. There are numerous bugs and half working implementations. Pull requests are greatly appreciated.
Don’t use OpenAI’s outdated tools. Also, don’t rely on prompt engineering to force the output to conform. Instead, use a local LLM and something like jsonformer or parserllm which can provably output well-formed/parseable text.
I’ll be informal to boost your intuition. You know how a parser can reject invalid inputs? Parsers can be generated from grammars, so we can think of the grammars themselves as rejecting invalid inputs too. When we use a grammar for generation, every generated output will be a valid input when parsed, because the grammar can’t build any invalid sentences (by definition!)
For example, suppose we want to generate a JSON object. The grammar for JSON objects starts with an opening curly brace “{”. This means that every parser which accepts JSON objects (and rejects everything else) must start by accepting “{”. So, our generator must start by emitting a “{” as well. Since our language-modeling generators work over probability distributions, this can be accomplished by setting the probability of every token which doesn’t start with “{” to zero.
They are all named some variant of “tutorial_Ch01” or “testprogram” probably. And one repository named “My Unnamed MMO” (or some other overly complex but trendy genre) that has like 12 lines of code so far and a crappy drawn pixelart png.
Yes, it’s been established that you can still use JavaScript, and it will only backfire sometimes, even though it’s a bad language. And yet, people try to use it where it’s not even required.
I always hate any viral math post for the simple reason that it gives me PTSD flashbacks to my Real Analysis classes.
The blog post is fine, but could definitely be condensed quite a bit across the board and still effectively make the same points would be my only critique.
At it core Mathematics is the language and practices used in order to communicate numbers to one another and it’s always nice to have someone reasonably argue that any ambiguity of communication means that you’re not communicating effectively.
programming.dev
Top