Free Download The Godfather Patch Fr Programs And Features

When a game is being developed, typically only 1 language is used by the development team. In some cases, the developers will also build translations for some other major languages, however this is not common for several reasons. • It complicates the development of the game • It costs time and money to do the translation, both of which are limited • Often the costs outway the benefit, as games in less-common languages don't sell as many copies There are several groups on the internet that address this issue by providing translations for games. However, it can often be hindered because the languages are hard to find, or use a proprietary file format.

Download Free Games Crack with Torrent links, Direct links, Mega, Google Drive.

What this means is that translations are slow, and a programmer needs to be involved to translate the files back and forward. Game Translator, following in the footsteps of Game Extractor, provides a simple interface for translating a number of games into different languages. Through the use of plugins, it can easily support new games, and the common interface makes for faster and more efficient translations.

Furthermore, Game Translator can be used by anyone who wants to change the language in a game, such as changing the names of enemy teams, and renaming players, weapons, or cars. The interface is quick and simple - all the strings are loaded up into a table for you, so you just have to go through them one at a time and change it to the translation. If the language file contains other parameters such as code names or formatting options, they will also be shown, allowing you to completely modify the language to suit your needs. If unicode is supported by the language pack, it will be used. • Supports reading and writing of language packs in a number of different formats.

• Displayed as a table with easy navigation around it for speed of use. • Plugins allow support to be added for new games and programs easily. • Support for many different languages, and unicode support where available. • Autorun programs for quick and easy use on Windows computers.

Game Translator is a free download, and contains all the main features needed to read and write language packs. Also requires: Game Translator is free, but donations are always welcome. Download the latest version of Java (32-bit) from, then double-click to install it.

Download the Game Translator installer, then double-click to install it. Game Translator doesn't work with 64-bit Java Some users have experienced difficulty running Game Translator when they have a 64-bit version of Java installed. If you have problems, try installing a 32-bit version of Java instead. When trying to run Game Translator, I get FileNotFound errors, or there is no text on the program interface This can occur when you have incorrectly unzipped Game Translator. To unzip the archive correctly, open the Game Translator zip file in your zip program (eg WinZip) and click the 'extract' button. Make sure that the box 'Use Folder Names' is checked.

Now the files should be extracted to the correct folders and the program will work. When trying to run Game Translator.exe, I get a MissingDll error dialog. You are using an old version of windows, and will need to update some files in order for the exe file to work. Download and install the Visual Basic 6 Runtime Files - you can find them on - or do a search in Google for them. When trying to run Game Translator.exe, I get a FileNotFound error dialog.

Some virus checkers do not allow *.bat files to be run on your computer - one such program is Kasperspy. If you have a virus checker, spyware cleaner, or another similar program that runs in the background of your computer, you should disable it and try to run Game Translator again. Remember to turn it back on after you are finished using Game Translator! Some programs will have options that will let you enable specific files - if this is the case then add the *.bat and *.exe files in the Game Translator directory.

How do I _______ in Game Translator? Game Translator has its own help file which will assist your understanding and use of the features in Game Translator. To access the help, click the big blue question-mark button in the program, or choose 'help' from the 'Help' menu. Choose the topic in the top dropdown box, and the associated help will appear underneath.

This help explains what each of the features do and how to use them. Why can't I edit the values in some of the columns? Some columns have fixed values and should not be changed otherwise the translation will not work. In addition, the Original column is uneditable - it exists as a reference so you know what the original value of the text was, before editing by you. Why do some language packs show additional columns? Some language packs have additional values associated with each text string, such as ID numbers or code values. These values are important, as it allows the game to find the correct text when it needs it.

You can change these values if you want, although it is usually advised not to, as it may cause the game to stop working. How can I report a bug or program error? If there is a bug in Game Translator, please send me an email with the details of the error. Please provide as much information as possible as to how you obtained the error, so I have the best chance of detecting and correcting the error. Be sure to include any error messages that appear on the screen. Game Translator will also try to create an error log for the errors that occur - if there are any files in the logs/ directory, then please send the latest file along with your email, it will give me a much greater chance of detecting and fixing the issue. I saved a language pack but it doesn't work in the game.

There are many reasons why a language pack may not work - for example a game might not allow unicode characters. At all costs - avoid overwriting your original game files because you may have to re-install the game if it doesn't work. Also, altering original game files could cause problems if you try to update the game or apply a patch. WATTO Studios does not make any guarantees that the language packs will work in your game - so by all means have a go but if it doesn't work then make sure you have a backup. I tried to open a language pack that is in the supported games list, but it doesn't work. Chances are that the plugin can only open some of the language packs used in the game.

For example, some PC games use the same extension for different types of files, not just for language packs. Language packs may also be compressed or encrypted. Thankfully though, you shouldn't encounter this very often. Game Translator may also have problems with language packs in game demos or in illegal copies of games - this is because the language packs are sometimes different to those used in the full purchased game. Even though Game Translator tries its hardest to open a language pack correctly, sometimes it gets the format wrong. You can force Game Translator to open the file in a particular format, which may work better. Click the 'Open' button or menu, then choose the correct plugin from the list in the SidePanel (by default it says 'All Files').

By choosing a plugin in this list, it forces Game Translator to open it using this format. Game Extractor has the ability to read and write archives from many different games. Game Extractor (Full Version) can also find common audio and image files stored within unknown archives, through use of the Format Scanner, and can also preview lots of common file types. Here is a brief list of games which are supported by Game Extractor.

I’m commiserating with a friend who recently left the technology industry to return to entertainment. “I’m not a programmer,” he begins, explaining some of the frustrations of his former workplace, before correcting himself, “—oh, engineer, in tech-bro speak. Though to me, engineers are people who build bridges and follow pretty rigid processes for a reason.” His indictment touches a nerve. In the Silicon Valley technology scene, it’s common to use the bare term “engineer” to describe technical workers. Somehow, everybody who isn’t in sales, marketing, or design became an engineer. “We’re hiring engineers,” read startup websites, which could mean from Javascript programmers to roboticists.

Read Follow-Up • The term is probably a shortening of “software engineer,” but its use betrays a secret: “Engineer” is an aspirational title in software development. Traditional engineers are regulated, certified, and subject to apprenticeship and continuing education. Engineering claims an explicit responsibility to public safety and reliability, even if it doesn’t always deliver. The title “engineer” is cheapened by the tech industry. • • • But these problems are just the most urgent and most memorable. Today’s computer systems pose individual and communal dangers that we’d never accept in more concrete structures like bridges, skyscrapers, power plants, and missile-defense systems.

Apple’s iOS 9 update reportedly “bricked” certain phones, making them unusable. Services like Google Docs go down for mysterious reasons, leaving those whose work depends on them in a lurch. “Your password contains invalid characters,” a quotes from an anonymous website, before twisting the dagger, “No, your startup contains incompetent engineers.” These might seem like minor matters compared to the structural integrity of your office building or the security of our nation’s nuclear-weapons arsenal. But then consider how often your late-model car fails to start inexplicably or your office elevator traps you inside its shaft.

Computing has become infrastructure, but it doesn’t work like infrastructure. When it comes to skyscrapers and bridges and power plants and elevators and the like, engineering has been, and will continue to be, managed partly by professional standards, and partly by regulation around the expertise and duties of engineers. But fifty years’ worth of attempts to turn software development into a legitimate engineering practice have failed. Just as the heavy industry can to produce the appearance of environmental responsibility and the consumer industry can to connect themselves to cause marketing, so the technology industry can “engineerwash”—leveraging the legacy of engineering in order to make their products and services appear to engender trust, competence, and service in the public interest. * * * By the 1960s, large national-defense systems were largely managed by computers. But the creation of such systems was a disaster—almost everything was delivered late, over budget, and with unnecessary complexity.

Late in the decade, the NATO Science Committee sponsored two conferences dedicated to establishing an engineering approach to software creation. The 1968 conference report shows that the notion was still aspirational: The phrase “software engineering” was deliberately chosen as being provocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be based on the types of theoretical foundations and practical disciplines, that are traditional in the established branches of engineering. Commercial applications meant to service ordinary people, from inventory control to airline reservations to banking, needed to be reliable.

Programming merely involved implementation. Software-engineering trends came and went during the ensuing decades.

Structured programming paradigms of the 1960s, meant to make software development more predictable and less risky, gave way to the object-oriented paradigm of the ‘80s and ‘90s, meant to make programming better mirror the business processes it facilitates. Meanwhile, the overall challenges of software engineering became more familiar and more entrenched. A decade after his 1975 intervention The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Fred Brooks lamented that little had changed. In response, he proposed incremental development, or prototyping. Today’s software development is iterative, and for good reason: Software wasn’t ever really akin to manufacturing and construction, where changes were difficult or impossible after initial implementation. Computing is turning engineering into a type of speculative finance rather than a calling. But, software was never not akin to manufacturing and construction, either.

Almost 50 years after the NATO Science Committee conferences, some of its participants’ warnings still hold. “In the competitive rush to make available the latest techniques,” the ‘68 report opines, “we strive to take great forward leaps across gulfs of unknown width and depth.” The same sentiment still holds today. So, what happened? The personal-computer revolution, for one. In the 1960s and ‘70s, computers were expensive and scarce. They were confined to research, in governmental, corporate, and industrial contexts. But with the rise of the microcomputer in the late 1970s, anyone could own, use, and program one.

This democratization of software development ignited the consumer and business-software revolution. But it also changed the stakes of software engineering.

Developing Microsoft Excel or the back-office systems at American Airlines was hardly glamorous or fast-paced. A giant product like a spreadsheet or a reservation system was still something like a bridge or a building: It had to work right, especially since patches and revisions were expensive and required physical intervention. Such cases require an engineering approach, while trying one’s hand at a program for upload to the local BBS (or the modern app store) does not. The informality of software development accelerated even more with the rise of the web, starting in the mid ‘90s and continuing through today. As software services moved to websites, smartphones, and the Cloud, two things happened.

First, the pressure to get things right the first time around was relieved, because updates and changes could be applied centrally, as in the mainframe era. Over time, the ease of rapid repair became an excuse for rapid development, and Brooks-style prototyping mutated into the constant software updates we experience today. Facebook has its one-time internal-development philosophy, “move fast and break things,” but no business reliant on civil or structural engineering would ever have adopted such a motto in the first place. And second, software became more isolated from the world, even as it became more predominant. Earlier computing systems were imbricated with other aspects of business, industry, government, and society. An automobile customer-management system has to integrate with dealers, suppliers, shippers, banks and lenders, regulators, legacy systems, and customers. But today’s software mostly stands alone.

Instagram, a photo-sharing service $35 billion last year, just uploads and downloads images between its servers and its app. To be sure, today’s Cloud-connected tools still rely on infrastructures, especially the physical servers and networks that handle millions of users accessing billions of files. But those activities have largely been to infrastructure giants. Likewise, integrations with messaging, financials, and storage have been abstracted such that individual software developers can treat them as black boxes.

That sometimes allows software to run better and more reliably, but it also allows developers to avoid interfacing with the messy world outside their co-working spaces. As a result, software development has become institutionally hermetic. And that’s the opposite of what “engineering” ought to mean: a collaboration with the world, rather than a separate domain bent on overtaking it. * * * The traditional disciplines of engineering—civil, mechanical, aerospace, chemical, electrical, environmental—are civic professions as much as technical ones. Engineers orchestrate the erection of bridges and buildings; they design vehicles and heavy machinery; they invent and realize the energy systems that drive this equipment; and they contrive methods for connecting all of these systems together. It’s no accident that the most truly engineered of software-engineering projects extend well beyond the computer.

Autonomous-vehicle design offers the most obvious contemporary example. When Google designs self-driving cars, it musters its own computational systems, like mapping and navigation. But it also integrates those into a world much larger than browsers and smartphones and data centers.

Autonomous vehicles share the roads with human-driven cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Those roads are managed, maintained, and regulated. Self-driving cars also interface with federal motor-vehicle standards and regulations, along with all the other material demands and foibles of a machine made of metal and plastic and rubber rather than bits.

Engineering addresses complex, large-scale systems. This is why it is so infuriating when Uber insists that it is, and thus not subject to the oversight of transportation-services regulation. Love or hate it, Uber is not just an app developer—it’s a car-service network activated by software, and thus subject to public interest and oversight. And no matter what Uber says, the company still in “engineering, design, and product” categories on its website. Engineering roles are illustrated by a bearded guy staring at source code on two monitors. Uber Screenshot Other engineering disciplines are subject to certification and licensure. If you’ve ever hired a civil, structural, or hydraulic engineer for a construction or repair project, that individual probably had to be certified as a Professional Engineer (PE).

Licensing processes, but Professional Engineers generally need to hold a 4-year degree from an accredited program in their discipline, pass one or more exams, and possess 4 or more years of professional experience under the supervision of a licensed engineer. Not all working engineers are or need to be Professional Engineers, but to open an engineering consulting practice or to claim that one is an “engineer” in a formal context, licensure is usually required. It’s in the state’s interest to ensure that someone claiming to be an engineer (or an architect a surveyor or a cosmetologist or a massage therapist) isn’t just making up his or her qualifications. Professional Engineering certification is usually offered only in fields where something could go terribly, horribly wrong with unqualified actors at the helm. California, for example, Professional licenses for agricultural, chemical, civil, control system, electrical, fire protection, industrial, mechanical, metallurgical, nuclear, petroleum engineering, and traffic engineers.

The Witcher 2 Serial Number Location here. In 2013, the National Council of Examiners of Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES), which all 50 states use for licensure examination, began testing for software engineers. The exams were produced in collaboration with the IEEE, who maintains a (SWEBOK). But it’s unlikely that Silicon Valley workers would pursue such a license. For one, software engineers are unlikely to open a private office like a structural engineer might do.

Even if all engineers are supposed to work under a licensed engineer to use the name, at big companies, many do so under layers of management. The information-technology industry simply doesn’t value certification as much as engineering does, or even as much as IT once did.

Silicon Valley bigwigs like Peter Thiel have been formal degrees for years, and even big companies like Google have indicated that a college degree over and above the ability to do whatever work Google decides is important. But by definition, “engineering” has traditionally entailed the completion of an-approved 4-year degree. ABET’s accreditation requirements for computer science are vague, but they do expect “an ability to apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity.”. Accredited computer-science programs might be moving further away from software engineering anyway. Has become predominant, focused on rapid iteration rather than long-term planning and intricate documentation. One popular agile method is, which is focused on short “sprints” toward a series of changing goals.

Engineers bear a burden to the public, and their specific expertise emanates from that responsibility. Lightweight approaches like Scrum are more compatible with the fast-moving marketplace of computer technology. An app or a web service isn’t a bridge or a building. Software is temporary, and provisionalism is considered a feature, not a bug. But at the same time, the stakes of software development are becoming akin to that of bridges and buildings.

Not only do computers run our cars and airplanes and medical devices, but also our banking systems, health-care organizations, insurance-underwriting practices, telephony and communication networks—even our social and entertainment activities. And even if successful, methodologies like Scrum never allow that infrastructure to stabilize. Some new tweak can be made, some new feature can always be added. Meanwhile, start-up culture is changing engineering education anyway. Entrepreneurship is exalted. Accelerators and incubators abound.

Not all students in computer-science programs think they’ll become startup billionaires But not all of them don’t think so, either. Would-be “engineers” are encouraged to think of every project as a potential business ready to scale and sell, rather than as a process of long-term training in disciplines where concerns for social welfare become paramount.

Engineering has always been a well-paid profession, but computing is turning it into a type of speculative finance rather than a calling. * * * The U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) the “engineers” who work at Google and Uber and Facebook and its ilk “Computer Programmers” or “Software Developers.” The former write code, the latter design systems. Nobody has to follow the BLS’s definitions, and you can understand why more grandiose titles would be appealing to Silicon Valley disruptors. “Engineer” conjures the image of the hard-hat-topped designer-builder, carefully crafting tomorrow.

But such an aspiration is rarely realized by computing. The respectability of engineering, a feature built over many decades of closely controlled, education- and apprenticeship-oriented certification, becomes reinterpreted as a fast-and-loose commitment to craftwork as business.

Engineerwashing entails a shift from the noun to the verbal sense of “engineer.” An engineer is a professional who designs, builds, and maintains systems. But to engineer means skillfully, artfully, or even deviously contriving an outcome. To engineer is to jury-rig, to get something working more or less, for a time.

Sufficiently enough that it serves an immediately obvious purpose, but without concern or perhaps even awareness of its longevity. Engineering in this sense embodies MacGyver scrappiness, a doggedness compatible with today’s values of innovative disruption. But then, no reasonable person would want MacGyver building their bridges or buildings. Perhaps software calamities like data breaches and dieselgate will raise the hackles of the public, such that the standards for software development will be revealed and, in time, reformed. But given the difficulty of renewing, creating, or enforcing more urgent regulatory oversight over the technology industry, the job titles of technology workers probably seems like a minor matter. Just as Silicon Valley has deftly reframed its business interests as a process of“,” so it has also reframed engineering as a process of building something temporary. Hormann Garage Door Opener Manual. After all, professionals like graphic designers and hedge-fund managers also build things, but we don’t normally call them engineers (brand engineering?

Speculation engineering?). They do work that might or might not be infrastructural, and that might or might not be conducted in the public interest. And those latter matters are what separate engineering from mere business or craft.

All of which leads us back to the bridges to which my friend negatively compared his “engineer” colleagues. In Canada, many civil engineers wear an symbolizing the ethical commitment their profession undertakes. The ring is proffered in a ceremony called the, in which an oath penned by Rudyard Kipling is recited. It reads, in part, “My Time I will not refuse; my Thought I will not grudge; my Care I will not deny toward the honour, use, stability and perfection of any works to which I may be called to set my hand.” (The U.S.

Order of the Engineer offers a similar but of the oath and the ring.) A persistent legend holds that the rings are forged from steel reclaimed from the Quebec Bridge, which collapsed catastrophically upon construction in 1907, killing dozens of workers. Though false, the myth still holds up allegorically. Even if it doesn’t embody it, the Iron Ring’s steel represents the Quebec Bridge, and every other.

Engineers bear a burden to the public, and their specific expertise as designers and builders of bridges or buildings—or software—emanates from that responsibility. Only after answering this calling does an engineer build anything, whether bridges or buildings or software.

I’ve never met or interviewed Donald Trump, though like most of the world I feel amply exposed to his outlooks and styles of expression. So I can’t say whether, in person, he somehow conveys the edge, the sparkle, the ability to connect, the layers of meaning that we usually associate with both emotional and analytical intelligence.

But I have had the chance over the years to meet and interview a large sampling of people whom the world views the way Trump views himself. That is, according to this morning’s dispatches, as “like, really smart,” and “genius.” In current circumstances it’s relevant to mention what I’ve learned this way. “I can handle things. Not like everybody says, like dumb. I’m smart and I want respect!” This morning’s presidential Twitter outburst recalls those words of Fredo Corleone’s in from The Godfather series. Trump that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” and in called himself a “very stable genius.” Trump may imagine that he’s Michael Corleone, the tough and canny rightful heir—or even Sonny Corleone, the terrifyingly violent but at least powerful heir apparent—but after today he is Fredo forever.

There’s a key difference between film and reality, though: The Corleone family had the awareness and vigilance to exclude Fredo from power. The American political system did not do so well. Ironically, it was the publication of a book this week that crystallized the reality of just how little Donald Trump reads.

While,, Trump’s indifference to the printed word has been apparent for some time, the depth and implications of Trump’s strong preference for oral communication over the written word demand closer examination. “He didn’t process information in any conventional sense,”.

“He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-­literate.” Wolff quotes economic adviser Gary Cohn writing in an email: “It’s worse than you can imagine Trump won’t read anything—not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers, nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored.”. Three months ago, when Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey of The New York Times unloaded about Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of sexual aggressiveness and abuse, the depth of detail made the story unforgettable—and as it turned out, historic. Real women went on the record, using their real names, giving specific dates and times and circumstances of what Weinstein had said or done to them. Of the reactions that flowed from this and parallel accounts—about Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly in the Fox empire, or Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose in mainstream TV, or Kevin Spacey and Louis CK in the film world, or Michael Oreskes and John Hockenberry in public radio, or Mark Halperin and Leon Weiseltier in print and political media, and down the rest of the list—one response was particularly revealing.

It was that the behavior in question had been an “.”. P resident Donald Trump’s decision to about the size of his “nuclear button” compared with North Korea’s was widely condemned as bellicose and reckless. The comments are also part of a larger pattern of odd and often alarming behavior for a person in the nation’s highest office. Trump’s grandiosity and impulsivity has made him a constant subject of speculation among those concerned with his mental health. But after more than a year of talking to doctors and researchers about whether and how the cognitive sciences could offer a lens to explain Trump’s behavior, I’ve come to believe there should be a role for professional evaluation beyond speculating from afar. I’m not alone.

Viewers of Trump’s recent speeches have begun noticing minor abnormalities in his movements. In November, he used his free hand to steady a small Fiji bottle as he brought it to his mouth. Onlookers described the movement as “awkward” and made jokes about hand size. Some called out Trump for doing the exact thing he had mocked Senator Marco Rubio for during the presidential primary—conspicuously drinking water during a speech. When Teddy Roosevelt was in office, he had the White House basement coated with mats. An avid martial artist, the 26th president wanted to be able to grapple and practice judo throws without leaving his home.

Then the youngest man to assume the presidency (he was 42), he injected a certain vigor into the role: He invited accomplished boxers to the White House to spar with him, he led ambassadors on intense hikes, and he once livened up a formal luncheon by tossing a Swiss minister to the floor to demonstrate a judo hold. Roosevelt was the only martial artist to occupy the oval office, but his enthusiasm for exercise fits a pattern that’s become more marked among recent presidents. It’s not hard to see the appeal of an active president to constituents: Being the leader of the free world is a demanding job, and it’s comforting to know the person filling it will make it to the finish line. The same clearly holds for Supreme Court justices, as evidenced by widespread liberal concern about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s bone density and kale intake. ( documenting the octogenarian’s workout regimen—a twice-weekly, hour-long circuit involving push-ups, planks, and weights—seems to have allayed some worries.). Jayson Jones was my favorite person to call when I needed a substitute for my high-school English classes. Jayson was an aspiring teacher who was extremely popular with the students and related especially well with many of the at-risk kids.

One day, I walked into the classroom at lunchtime, and he was sitting alone in the dark, listening to music. “Oh, an introvert?” I said. “I had no idea.” He smiled and responded, “Absolutely. I do this every day to recharge.” Unfortunately for me and thousands of future students, Jayson has left the classroom for the workshop: He’s refurbishing furniture instead of teaching and says that his “introversion definitely played a part.” I’ve written about in today’s increasingly social learning environments, but the introverted teachers leading those classrooms can struggle just as much as the children they’re educating. A few studies suggest that introverted teachers—especially those who may have falsely envisioned teaching as a career involving calm lectures, one-on-one interactions, and grading papers quietly with a cup of tea—are at risk of burning out. And when these teachers leave for alternate careers, it comes at a cost to individual children and school districts at large. When I taught linguistics to undergraduates, I would start each semester off by asking students what sort of assumptions they would they make about a speaker who said, 'I ain't got no money.'

The responses were always similar—'ignorant,' 'uneducated,' 'stupid.' If I pressed, one brave student would eventually come forward and say 'African American.' After writing up the list of associations on the board, I'd point out that for nearly a thousand years, double negation was standard in English. 'I ne saugh nawiht' in Middle English; 'I don't see anything' in Modern English.

Today, one can find it in French, which negates verbs by affixing the particles ne and pas to either side of the verb, as well as in Afrikaans, Greek, and a number of Slavic languages. The point: There is nothing inherently 'ignorant' or 'stupid' about double negation; judgments about speech are judgments about the speakers themselves. TSUKUBA, Japan —Outside the International Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine, the heavy fragrance of sweet Osmanthus trees fills the air, and big golden spiders string their webs among the bushes. Two men in hard hats next to the main doors mutter quietly as they measure a space and apply adhesive to the slate-colored wall.

The building is so new that they are still putting up the signs. The institute is five years old, its building still younger, but already it has attracted some 120 researchers from fields as diverse as pulmonology and chemistry and countries ranging from Switzerland to China. An hour north of Tokyo at the University of Tsukuba, with funding from the Japanese government and other sources, the institute’s director, Masashi Yanagisawa, has created a place to study the basic biology of sleep, rather than, as is more common, the causes and treatment of sleep problems in people. Full of rooms of gleaming equipment, quiet chambers where mice slumber, and a series of airy work spaces united by a spiraling staircase, it’s a place where tremendous resources are focused on the question of why, exactly, living things sleep. “I feel, I dunno, I feel comfortable with him,” is how 17-year-old Alyssa (Jessica Barden) describes her burgeoning relationship with James (Alex Lawther), another teenage misfit whom she met at school, in the first episode of The End of the F***ing World.

“I feel sort of safe.” Unbeknownst to Alyssa, while she’s pondering her feelings, James is ferociously sharpening a hunting knife with a gleam in his eye, plotting how to kill her. The concept of The End of the F***ing World—a heartwarming, quirky romance between a budding psychopath and a truculent, wounded teenager—feels a bit like a Wes Anderson screenplay that’s been rejected for being too dark. But the eight-part series, which arrives in a semi-surprise drop on Netflix Friday after debuting on the U.K.’s Channel 4, is a surprising tour de force, mashing up the pitch-black humor of British alternative comedies with the visual punch of an auteur-driven indie film.

It’s also mercifully short. Individual episodes top out at around 20 minutes, making the series eminently bingeable, and giving it a taut, concise structure that more new shows could stand to mimic.