As an American, Red Dwarf along with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy created a deep appreciation both for British humor and funny sci-fi in my adolescent self. I now own the box set on DVD and even have a random Red Dwarf novel I got at a yard sale (I forget which one of them wrote it though).
RIP Rob! Will be having a vindaloo, lager, and maybe some fish (Fish! Fish! Fish!) later in your honor
(EDIT: 100% talking about the UK version here, had no idea or forgot there _was_ an American version)
> Grant Naylor is a gestalt entity occupying two bodies, one of which lives in north London, the other in south London. The product of a horribly botched genetic-engineering experiment, which took place in Manchester in the late fifties, they try to eke out two existences with only one mind. They attended the same school and the same university, but, for tax reasons, have completely different wives.
> The first body is called Rob Grant, the second Doug Naylor. Among other things, they spent three years in the mid-eighties as head writers of Spitting Image; wrote Radio Four's award-winning series Son of Cliche; penned the lyrics to a number one single; and created and wrote Red Dwarf for BBC television.
> They have made a living variously by being ice-cream salesmen, shoe-shop assistants and by attempting to sell dodgy life-assurance policies to close friends. They also spent almost two years on the night shift loading paper into computer printers at a mail-order factory in Ardwick. They can still taste the cheese 'n' onion toasties.
Yeah the first two novels were credited to their "Grant Naylor" partnership, and they're both excellent.
After that, they each wrote an additional Red Dwarf novel individually / separately. Personally I've never come across those last two novels, although I always check for them whenever visiting a used book store. Maybe they were only released in the UK. They're available on Amazon in the US, but I haven't quite given up hope on stumbling across them naturally yet...
I’ve read both. It’s been years but Grant’s, Backwards, was notably better than Naylor’s, Last Human.
Backwards spent the first section of the book in the backwards universe, over years. It’s has an interesting exploration of the implications of that universe. By comparison Last Human wraps that up in a few pages and spends most of its time dealing with android assassins.
I can't remember why I opened a cupboard door, although I recently came across Cerulean blue in an art shop which after much googling got me to the X files episode that I can't have seen since it first aired. memory is indeed weird
I have watched the American pilot, and one thing I found curious was that the two female characters were the most interesting (Cat and the Computer played by Terry Farrel and Jane Leeves who were both in major series - Deep Space Nine and Frasier). Holly/Computer has been female for much of the British series and Cat did work as a female character. Contrast with the British show which was very male except for computer (sometimes) and Kochanski when she became a regular character (Chloe Annette didn't really work. I wish Clare Grogan had been a regular instead.)
Clare Grogan is definitely who I think of. I couldn't really see Chloe Annette being Kochanski, she was miscast and I don't think she got good scripts.
I just don’t think it makes sense having Kochanski as a regular character. Lister’s yearning for a (largely imagined) version of her works so much better.
I agree with you. Kochanski was meant to be a fun loving girl who ended up working on a mining ship and made the best of it, not a stuck up snob who liked to crack bad jokes about the second city of Vietnam. If Kochanski had been the genius that Chloe Annette played then she probably would have found work elsewhere. They did fix CA's version of the character a bit later on.
I attended a talk of his at Papers We Love at Strange Loop in 2018, I didn't really read the description and I was vaguely expecting something Haskell related, and instead got this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=766obijdpuU
I could barely understand it, but was impressed by what I could grasp. Dan Piponi's range is amazing, dude is brilliant
> In hindsight, the ‘seemingly’ part is key. When astronomers first gazed beyond the solar system, they noticed systematic deviations from the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Most scientists assumed that the problem was due to missing mass. But today, there is mounting evidence that this hypothesis is false, and that the observed discrepancy is caused by a breakdown of Newtonian physics. However, like the geocentric model of antiquity, the dark-matter paradigm lumbers on as the dominant belief, largely unfazed by the challenging evidence.
Yeah given that this blog is about "new ideas in economics and the social sciences" I was already feeling a bit skeptical, but when I got to this point and saw no mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster (I did not bother looking at the 4-year-old video linked to in that paragraph), I had to put this piece down. I subscribe to a number of astronomy youtubers and I have not heard anyone with data to back them up making this assertion.
As a pretty experienced American home baker I don't understand how you can assert that it's faster to measure volume with cups or etc. than to put a bowl on a scale and simply pour stuff in, measuring everything in grams. It's not even close in terms of speed, convenience, _and_ accuracy.
It is indeed not even close, but not in the way you are asserting. It takes a second to dip a measuring cup into the flour and level it off. So if I need 4c of flour, it takes me about 4 seconds. Meanwhile, to measure with a scale I have to slowly, carefully pour into the bowl so that I don't overshoot the amount I'm going for (and then then sometimes I overshoot and have to try to scoop the ingredient out a bit). Volume measurements are damn near an order of magnitude faster than weight measurements. And it's not like the extra accuracy from weight measurements is actually that important 95% of the time. Baking is not that precise, contrary to popular belief.
Welp not much I can say to that or to RandallBrown's response, seems obvious our experience and way of thinking is pretty different on this matter.
(EDIT: Also fwiw I often use a spoon or whatever to scoop things into the bowl, vs. pouring, which means I have more control but can still offload the measuring part to the scale...)
Whatever gets the delicious baked goods in your mouth I guess
Maybe it's my skill with a scale, but it's much faster for me to scoop a measuring cup or spoon into a container and scrape off the top than it is to go back and forth adding/removing stuff on a scale.
Makes me sad that PureScript doesn't have more adoption, not that I'm surprised. It's orders of magnitude better than Elm and even improves upon Haskell in some meaningful ways (row polymorphism).
I don't actually disagree but you could find similar criteria and write a similar piece for the vast majority of "professional" programming languages, including e.g. Python, JS, and C++, so this is kinda silly. "Computing is a pop culture" remains true, and the existence of this article in a magazine like Wired is a perfect example of that.
RIP Rob! Will be having a vindaloo, lager, and maybe some fish (Fish! Fish! Fish!) later in your honor
(EDIT: 100% talking about the UK version here, had no idea or forgot there _was_ an American version)
reply