Da Form 85 R: Fill & Download for Free

Assuming letters are reusable:aAAAAAabABBAAbeabedACaceacedaccedeADadAdaadageaddaddedAFageagedBAbabababebadbadebaebadgebadgedbagbaggagebaggedBBCBCEBEbebeebeefbeefedBeabeadbeaddedBebebedbeddedbegbeggedBFBGCAcabcabbedcabbageCADcadgecadgedcafecagecagedCECDDAdabdabbedDACAdaddaceDBDCdeaddeafdecafdecadedeedeeddefacedefacedDEGEAebbebbedEdedgeegadeggeggedFAFAAfabfacadefacefacedfadfadefadedfagfaggedFBFDAfeefedfeedGAgabGabeGaeagaffgaffedgaggaggedGEgeeGebGEDgedgeggI’m sure I missed quite a few. If you know any, comment below and I’ll add it.

TL;DR: My sense is that more critics are giving passable ratings over time to minimize flak.I’ll examine the top grossing films from 2016 and 2006 and look at the over rate and compare AO Scott (AOS), David Edelstein (DE) and Roger Ebert (RE) who are top reviewers. The general belief is that that top grossing movies over this time have been pretty middling — big special effects driven machines of dubious quality. So if the rotten versus fresh changed dramatically over this time it’d be a sign of a systematic shift in the reviewers. I didn’t have a chance to see if I could scrape RottenTomatoes and get actual statistics, so this is not a scientific survey, just a quick partial case study of two years.In 2016 there were 2 rotten movies in the top 10 (actually 11 grossers since Rogue One will make the list but hasn’t made it quite yet). The rottens were Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman. Those were pretty bad movies and the Rotten Tomatoes scores of 28% apiece indicate that. The rest of the movies were pretty stellar with an average of 87% fresh. Only the Secret Life of Pets and Fantastic Beasts were slightly low. The top critics generally went along with the ride, with some disagreements over Fantastic Beasts and Rogue One relative to the consensus.In 2006 there were 5 rotten movies in the top 10. The rottens were Pirates of the Carribean III, The Da Vinci Code, Ice Age II, Night at the Museum, X-Men III. Those weren’t particularly good movies, but with the exception of Ice Age II, they were passable. Of the rest, only Casino Royal cracked 80%. The top critics, often disagreed with the pack (notably thinking X-Men III was Fresh and Superman Returns, Mission Impossible III wasn’t).From this very limited sample, what it seems to me is that there is more herd mentality going on. There is a sense that you don’t want to be isolated in thinking that your review of a blockbuster was one of the few bad ones. I think there is more flak from the comment sections and the Twitter-verse. It also seems that sometimes they’ll give a Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes but be a pretty devastating review if you look at the actual review. Again, that could be to minimize flak and generally not caring about the integrity of RottenTomatoes.2016 MoviesCaptain America: Civil War (RT 90%,AOS F, DE F)Finding Dory (RT 94%, AOS F)Zootopia (RT 98%, DE F)The Jungle Book (RT 94%, DE F)The Secret Life of Pets (RT 75%, AOS F)Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (RT 28%, AOS R, DE R)Deadpool (RT 84%, DE F)Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them (RT 73%, DE R)Suicide Squad (RT 28%, AOS R, DE R)Doctor Strange (RT 90%, DE F)Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (RT 85%, AOS R, DE F)2006 MoviesPirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (RT 54%; AOS R, DE F)The Da Vinci Code (RT 25%, AOS R, DE R, RE F)Ice Age: The Meltdown (RT 57%, RE R)Casino Royal (RT 95%, RE F)Night at the Museum (RT 43%)Cars (RT 74%, DE F, RE F)X-Men: The Last Stand (RT 58%, DE F, RE F)Mission: Impossible III (RT 70%, DE R, RE R)Superman Returns (RT 76%, DE R, RE R)Happy Feet (RT 75%, DE F)

TCC : Tiny C Compiler Tiny C Compiler: object-size> ls -trl $(which x86_64-tcc) ⏎  -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 211632 Jan 13 2016 /usr/bin/x86_64-tcc* C compiler in 211 kb. It was originally even smaller but was not full compliant, when he submitted it to the IOCCC contest. It has a nice interpreter mode, so you can just make a C-file like this, and it would run without compiling:#!/usr/bin/tcc -run #include <tcclib.h>  int main() {  printf(“Hello World\n”);  return 0; } Execute without compiling:> ./ex1.c  Hello World 8086tinyadriancable/8086tinyA full compliant 8086 emulator, inclusive graphics capabilities (Hercules) and illegal opcodes: 27 kbytes. Also a IOCCC contest winner.insgesamt 40644 -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 1347 Mai 18 08:11 algorithmic-music-exploration/amen -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 898 Mai 18 08:11 Makefile -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 28254 Mai 18 08:11 8086tiny.c drwxr-xr-x 2 user user 4096 Mai 18 08:11 bios_source -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 7665 Mai 18 08:11 bios drwxr-xr-x 3 user user 4096 Mai 18 08:11 docs -rwxr-xr-x 1 user user 152 Mai 18 08:11 runme -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 1121 Mai 18 08:11 license.txt -rwxr-xr-x 1 user user 27024 Mai 18 08:11 8086tiny -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 1474560 Mai 19 11:57 fd.img -rw-rw-r-- 1 user user 40000000 Mai 19 11:58 hd.img BFCA Brainfuck compiler in 166 bytes for Linux. Yeah, right. That’s BYTES, folks, and that’s an executable. Not a fucking batch. Never seen something smaller that would run since the 8-bit era. Yup. A compiler, yeah, that thing is converting brainfuck into executables. Very small ones. That’s such an incredible hack, that you wouldn’t believe it, if you don’t run it yourself. Yeah. Even an empty ELF file is bigger, that’s right.http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/bf.asm.txt>ls -l -rwxr-xr-x 1 user user 166 Jan 18 2015 bfc Binary dump, just in case you can’t dig it. Yeah, exactly. That’s a compiler.00000000 7f 45 4c 46 83 c6 ee ad a5 a4 a4 8d 71 0e 93 3d |.ELF……..q..=| 00000010 02 00 03 00 89 fd eb 3c 95 b0 e9 45 2c 00 00 00 |…….<…E,…| 00000020 a5 91 59 29 cf 97 ab 92 eb 1a 20 00 01 00 00 00 |..Y)…… …..| 00000030 00 00 00 00 00 b0 e9 45 55 ab eb ce a6 00 00 00 |…….EU…….| 00000040 30 95 00 00 b3 01 b0 04 cd 80 61 40 cd 80 41 49 |0………[email protected]| 00000050 fe 01 fe 09 b0 03 31 db cd 80 09 c0 7e c2 ad 8b |……1…..~…| 00000060 01 3c 3e 74 a5 46 3c 3c 74 a0 46 2c 2b 74 9a 48 |.<>t.F<<t.F,+t.H| 00000070 74 95 46 46 48 74 92 48 74 8a 3c 2d 74 b7 3c 2f |http://t.FFHt.Ht.<-t.</| 00000080 75 89 b8 3a 31 0f 85 ab 8d 77 f8 58 29 c6 89 30 |u..:1….w.X)..0| 00000090 29 f8 ab eb eb b9 00 d0 e9 45 42 60 b5 b0 51 b1 |)……..EB`..Q.| 000000a0 3c 8d 79 60 eb da |<.y`..| 000000a6