The dub seems way better in that comparison. Generally I far prefer the dub tho for most anime. I’m not Japanese and so the sub always feels lifeless and serious. The dub is way more entertaining
I think it should be comical, because that makes it more entertaining. The sub is more boring because it's more serious sounding. I also don't see why it needs to be like how normal people talk, because it's literally a cartoon. Generally I far prefer the English dub style to the stern and serious Japanese sub style
First, it's an anime, not a cartoon.
They are different things with a different history.
Second, cartoon or not that does not justify silly voices and poor acting. Just because something is not live action or CGI it does not mean it should be dubbed like the Smurfs.
Additionally, the original author decided the style of the voicing. Dubbing for other languages should respect the author intention and not butcher their work.
I don't see much of a difference between calling it a Japanese cartoon and an anime. In English they're called cartoons, so I think that's a non-issue
> Second, cartoon or not that does not justify silly voices and poor acting.
> Just because something is not live action or CGI it does not mean it should be dubbed like the Smurfs.
As I said to the other reply, I'm not saying cartoon = silly, I'm saying cartoon = not reality. Even if it were dubbed with serious Japanese voice acting, do you think normal Japanese people talk that way? No.
Cowboy Bebop has funny moments and it has serious moments, I think the funny moments come through better in the dub, and the serious moments are portrayed excellently too. I think the English dub is high quality and more entertaining, and I enjoy it more than the Japanese voices with subs.
>I don't see much of a difference between calling it a Japanese cartoon and an anime. In English they're called cartoons, so I think that's a non-issue
It's a huge issue. Cartoons are silly. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are cartoons. Cartoons are for kids. Spike Speagal is not a toon. You know the distinction, please don't pretend you don't know.
>As I said to the other reply, I'm not saying cartoon = silly, I'm saying cartoon = not reality. Even if it were dubbed with serious Japanese voice acting, do you think normal Japanese people talk that way? No.
No movie or cinema = reality. Everything is made up. So this is actually a non-issue.
Second, you're not stupid. Many animes including cowboy bebop are drawn like comics. With a more realistic style. You understand this concept, please don't pretend you don't. You know exactly what I mean when I say this:
You see the difference visually right? If not then I can't help you. If you do see that the realism is increased in the second link, then I have to tell you, the voices also need increased realism to match or many people wouldn't be ok with it. I have a friend who is similar to you doesn't even notice bad acting, he likes shows with laughable acting like the flash on the WB. I think you might be like him.
>Cowboy Bebop has funny moments and it has serious moments, I think the funny moments come through better in the dub, and the serious moments are portrayed excellently too.
Your definition of "better" does not include good acting. Since anime is not reality and movies and basically everything you see on TV is not reality.... it seems to me you just don't care for good acting in general. It's a non-issue to you. So the shitty acting in all dubbed anime, cowboy bebop included,... you wouldn't mind seeing all the weird ass "Huh?"s and pauses I see in dubs in a Hollywood live action movie. Or is there a difference here? You tell me.
>Even if it were dubbed with serious Japanese voice acting, do you think normal Japanese people talk that way? No.
Most anime has over stylized voices. Cowboy bebop is NOT such an anime. The voice actors are realistic and representative of how real Japanese talk.
But even so the stylized voices need a certain level of realism so the japanese people can be drawn into the story. No American dub hits that level of realism at all.
> It's a huge issue. Cartoons are silly. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are cartoons. Cartoons are for kids. Spike Speagal is not a toon. You know the distinction, please don't pretend you don't know.
There are a lot of serious cartoons or comedic cartoons with serious elements. Also Cowboy Bebop is the latter, it's pretty comical in general, even in the sub.
> You see the difference visually right? If not then I can't help you. If you do see that the realism is increased in the second link, then I have to tell you, the voices also need increased realism to match or many people wouldn't be ok with it. I have a friend who is similar to you doesn't even notice bad acting, he likes shows with laughable acting like the flash on the WB. I think you might be like him.
Why does a slightly more realistic visual style mean that the actors must give voice acting that is realistic?
> But even so the stylized voices need a certain level of realism so the japanese people can be drawn into the story. No American dub hits that level of realism at all.
Have you considered that Japanese people and westerners want different things from anime?
If there is an entertaining, hilarious VO with bad acting, and a serious, realistic one with good acting, I'm going to choose the former. I'm watching the show to be entertained, not to be bored.
Why can't you just accept that I prefer dubs to subs and move on? You aren't going to "prove me wrong" in a matter of taste.
Comical in the wrong sense, as in it's so bad it's funny.
The sub is more serious sounding and is a reflection of what the directors vision was. The english version is a mangling of what cowboy bebop was intended to be. Heck Faye in japanese sounds like a 25 year old woman while in the English version she sounds 40.
> also don't see why it needs to be like how normal people talk, because it's literally a cartoon.
You realize that anime is a genre in itself that can be as serious as anything else out there? Japanese voice actors are the best in the world. Cowboy bebop has comedic elements but the genre is NOT cartoon, it's science fiction noir with a jazzy element and kung fu. Nowhere in there is "cartoon."
I think you like cartoons. And you like the warped version of what cowboy bebop was not intended to be. Or is this really true? The ending was serious. Was the ending still cartoony to you?
Maybe it isn't that you like cartoons. Maybe you're just use to the voice actors and can see past the horrible acting. Or maybe you're not use to subs. Even so the fact that you can hear the bad acting from the dub shows that you're preference is less than objective. The Japanese version has definitively better acting.
I can't accept the dubbed versions level of acting in a regular Hollywood movie, so I can't accept it if it's in an anime too. The bar doesn't lower for me just because it's an animation, but I guess it does for you.
> Comical in the wrong sense, as in it's so bad it's funny.
Not really, comical in the funny sense, like I find it entertaining.
> You realize that anime is a genre in itself that can be as serious as anything else out there?
I didn't say that it can't be serious, many cartoons are serious, but even if it's serious that doesn't mean it's like how normal people talk. You do know that Japanese people don't talk like people in anime?
> I think you like cartoons. And you like the warped version of what cowboy bebop was not intended to be. Or is this really true? The ending was serious. Was the ending still cartoony to you?
The serious parts of Cowboy Bebop came off as serious in the dub for me.
> The bar doesn't lower for me just because it's an animation, but I guess it does for you.
I think I just have different tastes to you, which you seem to find confusing or difficult to accept. I guess you would prefer a global hegemony of boring humans that have identical opinions to you, but that's not how it is.
I've watched a reasonable amount of anime, and I almost always prefer the dub, be it Cowboy Bebop, Welcome to the NHK, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Pokemon, even Steins;Gate
I like the Japanese cartoons as much as American ones, but I prefer the English dubs
>I didn't say that it can't be serious, many cartoons are serious, but even if it's serious that doesn't mean it's like how normal people talk. You do know that Japanese people don't talk like people in anime?
No, cartoons aren't drawn seriously. There can be serious moments with cartoons You can clearly a difference between how a cartoon is drawn and how a realistic anime is drawn.
Yes, you are correct most anime in japanese is highly stylized. Not cowboy bebop though. Cowboy bebop is realistic in terms of voice acting. Many more realistic animes that are more realistically drawn also drop the stylized voice acting.
>The serious parts of Cowboy Bebop came off as serious in the dub for me.
You've admitted there's bad acting. So basically you can take bad acting seriously.
>I think I just have different tastes to you, which you seem to find confusing or difficult to accept. I guess you would prefer a global hegemony of boring humans that have identical opinions to you, but that's not how it is.
There's a concept of bad taste and good taste. Nobody is explicitly saying it but this is what the discussion is about. I am saying your taste is bad. You're saying cowboy bebop is a cartoon, so bad acting is acceptable and therefore you have good taste.
>I've watched a reasonable amount of anime, and I almost always prefer the dub, be it Cowboy Bebop, Welcome to the NHK, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Pokemon, even Steins;Gate
What does this mean? There are a lot of cartoons that have a huge amount of effort put into them.
> You can clearly a difference between how a cartoon is drawn and how a realistic anime is drawn.
Are you 12? People in Japanese cartoons do not look and act like humans either.
> You've admitted there's bad acting. So basically you can take bad acting seriously.
Of course I can take bad acting seriously, can't you? That sounds like a you problem.
> There's a concept of bad taste and good taste. Nobody is explicitly saying it but this is what the discussion is about. I am saying your taste is bad. You're saying cowboy bebop is a cartoon, so bad acting is acceptable and therefore you have good taste.
Well, I think your taste is bad, so I don't see what there is to do other than to give up against each other. Again, you aren't going to prove that my taste is bad lol
This is real and scientifically validated. The first person who ran the 4 minute mile changed the game by using intervals. Prior to that everyone trained for the mile by running the mile.
Athletes who train for the mile have to have intervals as the majority of their regiment. This is by far more effective then running long distances for increasing vo2 max.
Oh, yeah, that’s a detail I forgot! I didn’t actually try running a 5k before the race! (I had done a bunch of 5s and 10s before the injury though) I went into it not knowing, even a little bit, what my overall time might be. Mostly that was because I didn’t particularly care at that point, I was just happy to be back running again.
It was hard for me to understand this arbitrary rule of things becoming less ordered over time. Was this just a fundamental natural law?
The answer is no. Entropy is a logical consequence of probability and time.
Why do things become more chaotic over time? Because chaotic configurations have a higher probability of occurring.
There are far more disordered configurations of things then there are ordered, this is why things become more disorder with time. Time changes the configuration. And by probability a high probability configuration is more likely to occur then a low probability configuration. So the axiom of nature here is not entropy, it's probability. Entropy is just a consequence of probability.
There are systems where ordered configurations are more numerous then disordered configuration and in those systems things become more ordered with time. In these cases entropy is STILL defined to be increasing as things get more ordered. Thus entropy is not describing disorder, or is it?
The thing I don't fully understand yet is heat entropy. Apparently when you take heat into account for everything, the disordered intuition suddenly becomes applicable. So if you have a system becoming more ordered with time, heat must be increasing somewhere to offset this increase in order. Maybe someone can explain this part to me?
> The thing I don't fully understand yet is heat entropy. Apparently when you take heat into account for everything, the disordered intuition suddenly becomes applicable. So if you have a system becoming more ordered with time, heat must be increasing somewhere to offset this increase in order. Maybe someone can explain this part to me?
You can extract work from order, and can create order with work. Consider this scenario:
We have two kinds of particles and two rooms. If we have one kind of particle per room it is pretty ordered, if we mix everything then it isn't ordered. Now, lets say we have two filters, filter 1 lets particle 1 through and filter 2 lets particle 2 through, but not the others. So we have a wall between the rooms made of these two filters. Particle 1 will just put pressure on filter 1 and vice versa. This way we can let particle 1 push their filter through room 2, which creates work, thus mixing particles a bit. Do the same with particle 2 and now we have mixed both and extracted the work from mixing the particles. We can reverse this process by moving the filters the opposite direction, dividing the particles again and this process will require work to perform.
Exactly how the filter work doesn't matter, as long as it lets through the other particles then the other particles will stabilize and eventually even out the pressure on the sides. It could be slow but it would work. Doesn't have to be perfect either, if probability isn't exactly the same for both particles you can do it over and over until you get the purity on each side you want. We already uses this to enrich uranium for example, so we can make filters for basically anything in theory.
Ok, but notice this argument is based on purely probabilistic assumptions and that all micro-states are equally probable to occur and do occur in time. There is still the question whether these assumptions are valid in a given physics system.
In physics we know much more about evolution of systems, for example in classical mechanics model of gas, there are deterministic equations of motion which also conserve some quantities like energy. So not all thinkable chaotic states are accessible, and the evolution of state is not a repeated random choice out of the whole set of states.
I envy you for your understanding of entropy. I understand a few simple aspects of it, but the deeper meaning eludes me. It does seem to be a useful concept which grants access to so many knowledge domains.
There are way way way more of them, so if you randomly select from the set of all possible configurations, you are much more likely to get something spread out and chaotic then something with a recognizable structure. As atoms and molecules bounce around, they are effectively randomizing. After a few dozen interactions each, they're basically in a new state. Repeat over and over and you're basically just drawing from that same set again. There's a chance that all of the air molecules could bounce to one side of the room at once, but the likely hood of that makes it something you won't see in the lifetime of the universe. So if you see a video where all the air rushes from half the room to fill the rest, you can be effectively certain you're watching the video forward and not in reverse.
From other replies to your question I understand that you use "chaotic" in the mathematical sense while other commenters use it in the colloquial ("random") sense.
12345 is less plentiful then 32415 or 32154 or .... What we considered "ordered" has less possibilities then "unordered" not just in a string of 5 numbers but for most systems. That should help you get the intuition. Lmk if you need more elaboration.
Master that entropy and you too can enjoy sending data over Internet without changing one bit of data: pulse-width modulation of inter-packet delay gaps.
He wants contracts which is basically dependent types. These rules live in types and already exists in agda, Idris and coq and has a range of tradeoffs.
Essentially these languages can enforce static checks and "contracts" so powerful you don't need unit tests. These "contracts" cover more ground and are safer then tests. The tradeoff is you need a big brain and lots of time to write these things.
Then he wants a language that is truly dynamic. Which is like the opposite.
Actually he wants 6 different things. Some of those six different things might live in the same language some of them wouldn't but wanting six different things is in no way problematic. Different tools/toys for different jobs/hobbies.
He doesn't want the building blocks though. I could build those 6 things in any number of languages. What he want's are languages that explore making them ergonomic at the language level. That's like saying everything is doable in assembly. Which I mean sure, but that doesn't mean we don't want more ergonomic abstractions of those things.
> That's like saying everything is doable in assembly
Dependent types are not doable in assembly though. Assembly has no notion of types. The claim that all languages are equivalent because they're turing complete has absolutely no relevance here. While true in terms of capability, the syntax and semantics of languages do make them different. One can add a contract library to idris. You cannot do that to assembly code because asembly code as a library. Such a thing is nonsensical since assembly's compilation model has no notion of type checking.
A dependently typed language is executed on a computer, therefore it is expressible in assembly code. Like sentences are expressed with words which are expressed with, say, letters. Letters are not sentences, but sentences do guide the expression of letters and vice versa. And sentences can indeed be made out of letters.
Neural networks are expressed and represented by mathematical symbols, yet those mathematical symbols alone cannot make a prediction or do anything useful.
No one is saying assembly language cannot be used to write a dependently typed language system, with a type checker and runtime (which are one and the same in a DT language anyway). However, that does not make assembly language dependently typed.
You are committing the logical error of assuming that the result of a process means inputs to the process are equal to the outputs. Just because I could take grain and make it into bread doesn't mean grain is equivalent to bread.
When talking about these things there is a meta level we are targetting that you're not understanding. Types exist at a meta level and are part of the language.
Assembly language does not have types. What you can do is create a new language with assembly and have that language have types. The reason why it has to be done this way is because these types of checks CANNOT happen at runtime. It's a pre-runtime check that prevents the code from even running if it's not correct.
Think about it. Can you add types to assembly language without creating a new language? No.
>What he want's are languages that explore making them ergonomic at the language level.
This is exactly what dependently typed languages like coq and idris are attempting to do. What he wants ALREADY exists and these things are trying to fulfill EXACTLY his intent. I am not attempting to talk about some obscure isomorphism.
You also cannot build all 6 things in any number of languages unless you are using those languages to build new languages. These checks exist at the type level, not at runtime, but pre-compile time.
I think what you are missing is that the author of the article does not consider the affordances of those languages as sufficient exploration of the space. Just because they can express these things and are meant to fulfill his intent doesn't mean they succeed in the ways he wants.
2. Copying memory around to enable to facilitate these immutable structures is SLOW.
This is categorically wrong. You actually don't know what you're talking about.
In an functional programming language, because everything is immutable, the compiler just MOVES everything around. There is ZERO copying in a functional programming language. In fact there's no explicit command for it either. There is zero reason for you to copy a variable that is immutable so there's no copy() function.
What you're referring to is more of what happens when someone is writing functional code in a language that's not functional.
I like FP but debuggers fail with FP because debuggers are imperative tools. There's a definite miss match in both UI and concept. It's not the fault of FP itself, it's more the fault that we haven't come up with such an interface yet.
If you want an FP debugger the interface has to be able to step by step evaluate an expression. Since FP is just a giant expression, how is it evaluated step by step? Break points will be different and stepping through it will be different as well.
Take for example:
(1 + 2) * 3 + 2
Stepping through it with a debugger would look like this (imagine the expression transforming at each step):
(1 + 2) * 3 + 2
(3) * 3 + 2
9 + 2
11
A break point would look like this (square brackets indicate a GUI marker)
(1 + 2) + [(4 * 6)] + 1
A run until breakpoint will evaluate to this:
(3) + [(4 * 6)] + 1
That's it. Debugging FP is about stepping through expressions. Debugging Imperative programming is about stepping through statements. And the unique thing about "stepping" through an expression is that the expression is getting reduced (aka changing) at every step.
You need a complete UI overhaul for FP to work. This tends to be harder in terms of building a UI, because text by nature is a one to one mapping to procedural instructions as text Lines are equivalent to instructions. However for FP everything can basically be on one line, so text doesn't really fit and thus you actually need a more dynamic UI for a proper FP debugger.
>I love pure functions, but in the end, I think it is just a tool. A solution to a set of problems,
I'm tired of seeing this analogy everywhere. Everyone knows it, there's nothing new here. When we talk about things like FP or OOP, the real opinions live at the extremes. Where one tool is definitively better than another tool or where some tools are complete garbage.
Saying that everything is a tool for different things or it's all apples and oranges says nothing about anything.
All data structures have types. EVEN lists of records that each contain further records. A type or a data structure is an orthogonal concept to FP, because types exist in imperative programming and data structures also exist in FP.
Metrics to drive up numbers are the way forward. You need to test theories and prove them with data and experiments. THIS is what is expected in a report; and I see nothing I expect in this report.
Everything you see here is NOT sophistication. It has no science it's just an illusion.
The use of geometry and technical jargon gives the illusion of legitimacy however this stuff is no more legit then the word 'science' in 'scientology'. Which means that exactly like scientology, the content is illegitimate but borrows vocabulary from legitimate fields like "science" to make it seem real.
The use of analogies like DNA help people form connections with irrelevant things and these analogies don't actually communicate any new information. They serve to create a feeling of catharsis when you realize that there is a connection, but the connection is actually worthless. You learn nothing new.
Take the analogy: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." The quote is worthless. You already know life is random. You already know chocolate boxes are random. A comparison is made and a new connection is formed in your brain. But is there actually any new information here? No. It's a trick to make you think the quote is profound when it is really a bunch of mundane stuff you already know.
You've been bamboozled, along with every exec that fell for this report. Possibly the person who wrote this report tricked himself as well.
Yes, though I get the feeling that being uncertain about the precise quantum of caramels versus mint cremes isn't exactly the point Forrest Gump was trying to make.
(And though I have absolutely no idea, one might suspect that modern boxes of supermarket chocolate are assembled by machine and all contain a constant, predetermined number of each type.)
It's from the US. Sees candy boxes are loaded with random chocolates and you won't know what the chocolates contain until you put one in your mouth.
The quote was made famous by an old US movie starring Tom Hanks. The movie is called Forrest Gump. Fittingly, the character who said that quote is mentally challenged.
Yes, I saw Forrest Gump when it was in cinemas. I do understand the theoretical concept of a boutique, hand-selected tray of chocolates which one cannot guess until after they're opened. It's just not something I've personally experienced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdxUNk1wR4
Do not watch the dub.