<span style="color:#323232;"> MODE UNIVERSE = [upb OF class universe, upb OF class universe]BOOL; STRUCT( INT upb, BOOL lifeless, alive, PROC(REF UNIVERSE)VOID init, PROC(REF UNIVERSE)STRING repr, PROC(REF UNIVERSE, INT, INT)VOID insert glider, PROC(REF UNIVERSE)VOID next ) class universe = ( # upb = # 50, # lifeless = # FALSE, # alive = # TRUE, # PROC init = # (REF UNIVERSE self)VOID: FOR row index FROM LWB self TO UPB self DO init row(self[row index, ]) OD, # PROC repr = # (REF UNIVERSE self)STRING:( FORMAT cell = $b("[]", " ")$, horizon = $"+"n(UPB self)("--")"+"l$; FILE outf; STRING out; associate(outf, out); putf(outf, (horizon, $"|"n(UPB self)(f(cell))"|"l$, self, horizon)); close(outf); out ), # PROC insert glider = # (REF UNIVERSE self, INT row, col)VOID:( self[row-2, col+1] := TRUE; self[row-1, col+2] := TRUE; self[row, col:col+2] := (TRUE, TRUE, TRUE ) ), # PROC next = # (REF UNIVERSE self)VOID:( [0:2, LWB self-1:UPB self+1]BOOL window; # init row(window[LWB window, ]); window[LWB self, 2 LWB window] := window[LWB self, 2 UPB window] := window[UPB window, 2 LWB window] := window[UPB window, 2 UPB window] := lifeless OF class universe; window[LWB self, LWB self:UPB self] := self[LWB self, ]; FOR row FROM LWB self TO UPB self DO REF []BOOL next row = window[(row+1) MOD 3, ]; IF row NE UPB self THEN next row[LWB self:UPB self] := self[row+1, ] ELSE init row(next row) FI; FOR col FROM LWB self TO UPB self DO INT live := 0; FOR row FROM row-1 TO row+1 DO REF[]BOOL window row = window[row MOD 3, ]; FOR col FROM col-1 TO col+1 DO IF window row[col] THEN live +:= 1 FI OD OD; self[row, col] := IF window[row MOD 3, col] THEN live -:= live = 3 FI OD OD ) );
</span>
why can we only critique “full on” socialism? (what does that even mean) and yet capitalism with democratic-socialistic elements is treated as if it’s “full on” capitalism?
I’ve worked in all sorts of performance disciplines. Comedia dell’arte, High clown, low clown / children’s ents, improv, film, theatre in pros-arch, round…, puppet , Grotowskian devised theatre, Boalian Theatre of the Oppressed…
Only one small subset of that work demands word-perfect adherence. Performance is much more than post-Stanivlaskian Aristotlean drama.
Even Beckett, who was completely, insanely anal about everything from the design of the tree in Waiting for Godot, to the size of the spotlight in Not I, to the length and timing of the tapes in Krapps Last Tape, still made on-set changes right up to the performance.
Not to mention, often on set the script supervisor will sometimes give you last minute changes between takes.
Then, no script is ever perfect. I did Glengarry Glen Ross (which is suuuper tight in terms of interruptions, e.g.
A: “And a man has to shiver in his…”
B: “…shoes…”
A: “…boots…”
B: “…shoes… boots…”
A: “…And for what?” )
But one night the cop missed his cue during one of the sections where people are coming in and out of the office to be interviewed, and I’m (as Roma) trying to put the screws on the guy from the Chinese restaurant so I have to keep vamping on convincing him not to call his wife until the cop remembers to come out and confuses him for Shelly Levene.
It’s so much better for the audience for me to vamp than it is for us to stop the play and go and tell the actor he missed his cue. The show must go on.
funny because, this is actually closer to what “The Method” really is than any of the weird shit you hear about (a way of analyzing text into small compartments of meaning and what their transitive emotional properties are and then considering the impact those words would have on another person when said with different intentions, and picking one based on surrounding context clues also found in the text)