Does it? I watched this video and the explanation of how they (mostly Bill in Vermont) did it had barely enough room for the song data. I think the line graphics might have been some good story telling
It was likely just a proof of concept run in the emulator. I'd guess it would be wildly impractical to get even that version of doom on real paper tape
One of my first legit independent contractor jobs was a background job for coldfusion-based website that needed to get partners to update their data periodically. The business had figured out that their building supply partners were more responsive to faxes than emails and had a desktop window machine with a fax-modem used for that. A quick "micro-service" in classic asp to bridge the website to the desktop machine and they made it through the last few years of common usage of faxing for these kinds of things.
"You maintain ownership of your data: This service does not claim ownership over user-generated content or materials, and the user * doesn't need to waive any moral rights* by posting owned content."
and
"You waive your moral rights"
Edit: I have no energy for figuring out which of these statements is more true.
I think in such a case (unless there was some context that clearly showed the difference between those two statements) then you as a user would benefit from contra proferentem. This legal principle (which is explicit law in some jurisdictions) says that the contract terms should be interpreted in favour of the party who did not write them.
"database" in legal/business speak (AFAIK) is the more general "organized collection of data" - not the more software engineer focused relational/object/graph- implementations of such.
The list is precisely words with multiple meanings of the same spelling, but there are only two meanings of "buffalo" that aren't proper names, and this list is about words with three or more meanings.
(As an aside, I've always felt that you can have unlimited "buffalos" in a sentence, without ever using the name of the city, through a process of recursion, but I'm not enough of an authority to get my version into the Wikipedia article...)
Yeah, not a candidate for the list. I thought it wasn't because the list was about > 2 different spellings that sound "identical" but mean different things.
I agree with you and when I (a non-linguist) first learned about this it did occur to me that there was probably some infinite recursive version and it took *some* of the fun out of it. Its' still fun as is this list.
I also suspect there are lots of good examples of whatever a word with multiple meanings with different parts of speech is called. So it should be possible to find...use many "Buffalo buffalo buffalo..."
I'd argue that that post isn't quite correct. They say you can't always add one and have it be correct, I think you can.
One word: "Police!" This is the odd-duck, you can have a one-word imperative statement telling you to police.
Rule 1: We can always have a [Noun phrase] + [verb], the verb just says what the noun phrase does.
Two words: "Police police." (Cops police) What do cops do? They police.
Rule 2: Any time you have a [noun phrase] + [verb], you can add a direct object to the verb.
Three words: "Police police police." Who do the cops police? They police other cops.
Finally rule 3: Any time you have a [subject] + [verb] + [object] you can rearrange the object to make it the subject of a new sentence. In this case, the subject of the new sentence would be "Cops that other cops police." Or "Police (that) police police."
In English, the "that" is not necessary (though it usually helps with clarity). For instance, we can say "Mice cats eat are usually the slow ones."
Then apply rule 1, we can take any noun phrase and add a verb to it to describe what those entities do. ("Mice cats eat die.")
So four words (Rule 3 + 1): "Police police police police." The cops that other cops police, themselves police.
Five words, from rule 2, who do they police? "Police police police police police."
Six words, from rules 3 + 1, rearrange and add a verb: "Police police police police police police."
hmm, yeah that's right with the imperative model you can have a grammatically correct sentence as well, so that means
the sentence
[police police] police [police]
meaning: The police police will police the police.
could also be
[police police police] police!
meaning: the members of the set police police police (those who police the special police forces that police the normal street police) commit the action of policing!
Kind of. Though it doesn't need to be in the imperative. "Cats sleep" is a fine descriptive phrase of what cats do. "Police police" is similarly a description of what cops do.
But the original article seems to have "Police police" as a noun phrase, meaning "the police of the police," and that's how it goes to infinity -- you can keep on adding another "police" to the noun phrase.
That seems uglier to me. It just a string of nouns and an assertion that the "police police" (or the "police police police") are a named thing.
My version takes a object of the sentence and makes it a noun phrase. So if the cops hunt criminals, we could make a noun phrase: the criminals that cops hunt. We can then make add a verb at the end. "Criminals cops hunt fight." (When the criminals get hunted, they get anxious and start fighting.) You can then add a object to that verb. "Criminals cops hunt fight alligators." Replace all those nouns and verbs with "police" and you get your sentence.
Wasn't fintech but was fin something. Several weeks into trying to port a Excel workbook with a zillion tabs, some VBscript from stackoverflow and other nastiness and being unable to replicate the results. I discovered the "consultant" who help them create this insane thing had turned on the "allow circular references"[1] option and choosen a number of iterations that "Seemed to make it work"
Yay! for non-deterministic financial modeling.
Also was really fun trying to explain to the folks who hired me why I couldnt get the results they wanted to see.
ha wow, read about a guy having to clean up after some data scientists that'd figured out how to use circular references and an iteration limit to do crazy, hard to replicate stuff, (thankfully) never ran into it myself but I bet that was a 'fun' time for you !
Here's to hoping we both never have to dip back into that world again :D
I expected the layout, head size, expression etc rules to be more or less standard across countries. More than a decade a go our dual citizen baby got both passports at once and I thought I could use one of the US duplicates for the other country... an hour of fiddly standards checking, measuring, reprinting, cropping and I got something that would pass on the application but got a scolding that it was not quite right.
And an IDE would also fail to find references for most of the cases described in the article: name composition/manipulation, naming consistency across language barriers, and flat namespaces in serialization. And file/path folder naming seems to be irrelevant to the smart IDE argument. "Naming things is hard"
