Is re-skinning equipment a balanced approach for concept diversity?

Sometimes, it is quite difficult to make that one concept you want for your character.

My group quite often ends up in the situation that the concept one of them have in mind for their character doesn’t quite fit the rules, and you can’t really make that character work with what Pathfinder offers as-is, sometimes even with supplements and third-party material. To give a recent example:

  • A player wants to roll a tanky barbarian-like warrior focused on defending its group while wielding an axe and shield, but:
    • Doesn’t like Rage mechanics,
    • Wants to keep her character’s gear more savage-like, with heavy furs serving as the little clothing she’ll wear,
    • Wants to be able to protect her group and tank effectively, while being able to deal good damage,

An almost-perfect match for this is the warder. The class is very tanky, has good defensive mechanics, is very closely-related in power level to the rest of the group, and works nicely with sword and board.

But the warder uses plate armor, and it doesn’t fit the “visual concept” the player wants for her character.

To solve that, I created the Berserker’s Battle Furs. It is basically the same as a Full Plate in terms of stats:

Type: Heavy Armor

Cost: 1,500 gp;

Weight: 50 lbs.

Armor Bonus: +9;

Max Dex Bonus: +1;

Armor Check Penalty: -6

Arcane Spell Failure Chance: 35%;

Speed: 20 ft./15 ft.

…But it looks like a heavy set of fur bracers, boots, loincloth and cloak, more or less like the reference image. I used a lore explanation to justify the price and the stats, saying that it is made from the treated pelts of dire beasts. My only problem would be to time to don, since this is obviously easier to put over your body than a full suit of armor, and even so this situation comes up so rarely that it wouldn’t be a big deal.

This solved the issue at hand, the player got quite happy, and now our group has a barbarian-but-not-really defending the group as a wall of flesh, fur, and awesomeness.

This got me wondering – is this a balanced approach for giving my players more diversity regarding character concepts? Or am I going to shoot myself in the foot, like I did so many other times in the past, by not seeing something coming?

using NoScript – what approach to use with randomnly named CDN scripts?

I ran across this on This question isn’t about itself, which I have no problem trusting. Rather, what approach do you recommend in dealing with CDN scripts that have very long random names? Now, I know they’re most likely just how the main site decided to refer to external utility scripts they’ve put on a CDN.

But, if the main site had been hacked, the attackers could also inject a script to fire and use a long random name that looks innocuous by looking a like a utility script.

Is there any particular reason to be more cautious about these long random named scripts than for the more recognizably-named ones? I suppose not, but they do make me a bit queasy on NoScript. Especially on sites that I will enter credit cards into.

enter image description here

Approach for algorithm to find closest 3-D object in a list of many similar objects to a given test case

Lets say I have a list of many (10s of thousands – millions) objects, and each of these objects has a given number of 3-D vertices (my current implementation uses 8 vertices each, but this number can be reduced if it causes a very significant increase in performance). These vertices are currently stored as floats from 0-255, but this range can also be changed if need be, assuming it will not reduce accuracy too drastically. Also, I can store these objects in any data structure that would be beneficial for this algorithm.

I am given another such object, also with the same number (8) 3-D vertices, but of which in general it must be assumed that none of the vertices are common with any vertices included in the list of stored previous objects.

With all of this in mind, I need an algorithm that will return an object from that list that is optimally close to the test case object (close being defined in the normal, euclidean distance, sense). By optimally close, I mean that it does not have to be the global optimum if this will greatly increase performance, although if there is a quick algorithm that will always return the global optimum i would love to hear it.

What is the main concept of using lexical,linguistic, semantic or syntactic approach in NLP for cyberbullying

Am really in need of some explanation, am working on a nlp cyberbullying detection tool which i will deploy to the web using django framework, however, am stuck on some idea, can someone explain to me….What is the main concept of using lexical,linguistic, semantic or syntactic approach in (NLP) and how is applied in cyberbullying or what are the step, i know POS-tag is way of grouping word and look for dependency in other word, my idea of pos-tag is a synonym of semantic because pos-tagging is a process linking words to it root and representation word in a understandable context correct me if wrong.

I read an article where a paper tackled a project using predictive analysis approach with feature extraction techniques, navie baye for classification and to train the model, in the discussion they also spoke on how other team used Semantics approach to classifier cyber bullying . I know of data cleaning, tokenisation stemming and most of feature extraction model, however, am stuck on the problem of approach which is what is the relevant on lexical, semantic or syntactic and how are they been approached.

Nice Computational Approach to the generalized “24 Problem”?

I was wondering about the possible existence of an algorithm to essentially play an extended version of the game ’24’.

Essentially, we are given N cards, each between 1 and 10. We aim to use the basic operations (+, -, *, /) and parentheses wherever we like to obtain a desired value T using all of the cards. Assuming that T is reasonably valued (i.e. not so large that it obviously cannot be reached), does there exist a non-brute force algorithm that finds at least one solution for obtaining T using a set of N cards?


AWS Appsync authorization – why is IAM authorization safer than API Key based approach

We are currently evaluating which authorization type to use for our production AppSync APIs.

As per AWS docs(, ), AppSync supports multiple authorization types – like API Key based (passing a static API Key), IAM role based.

My questions are around the differences between API Key based approach & IAM based one:

1)why is using a static api-key considered bad for production use cases if all calls to AppSync are HTTPS based(which has good encryption)?

2)Why can’t we use a short lived token of our own along with API key & validate that token in a resolver? This would bring in some dynamism as the token is shortlived , so even if somebody hacks and gets this token ; by them time a replay happens the token is already expired?

3)The previous manual token approach seems similar to using an IAM role for Authorization. How safer would it be to use Amazon Cognito’s IAM Auth. roles for this be than a manual token approach? Does the SIGV4 standard used by AWS help in anyway here?

Understanding of big-O massively improved when I began thinking of orders as sets. How to apply the same approach to big-Theta?

Today I revisited the topic of runtime complexity orders – big-O and big-$ \Theta$ . I finally fully understood what the formal definition of big-O meant but more importantly I realised that big-O orders can be considered sets.

For example, $ n^3 + 3n + 1$ can be considered an element of set $ O(n^3)$ . Moreover, $ O(1)$ is a subset of $ O(n)$ is a subset of $ O(n^2)$ , etc.

This got me thinking about big-Theta which is also obviously a set. What I found confusing is how each big-Theta order relates to each other. i.e. I believe that $ \Theta(n^3)$ is not a subset of $ \Theta(n^4)$ . I played around with Desmos (graph visualiser) for a while and I failed to find how each big-Theta order relates to other orders. A simple example Big-Theta example graphs shows that although $ f(n) = 2n$ is in $ \Theta(n)$ and $ g(n) = 2n^2$ is in $ \Theta(n^2)$ , the graphs in $ \Theta(n)$ are obviously not in $ \Theta(n^2)$ . I kind of understand this visually, if I think about how different graphs and bounds might look like but I am having a hard time getting a solid explanation of why it is the way it is.

So, my questions are:

  1. Is what I wrote about big-O correct?
  2. How do big-Theta sets relate to each other, if they relate at all?
  3. Why do they relate to each other the way they do? The explanation is probably derivable from the formal definition of big-Theta (might be wrong here) and if someone could relate the explanation back to that definition it would be great.
  4. Is this also the reason why big-O is better for analysing complexity? Because it is easier to compare it to other runtimes?

Matrix chain multiplication: Greedy approach

Edit; some suggested a thread in which the algorithm multiplies the 2 matrices with lowest values first. Mine is different: it divides by parenthesis the 2 matrices. And continues to the next section.

I have tried so many ways to disprove this one. This algorithm works like this: A= 5×2 B= 2×7 C= 7×3

First, find the lowest number in the lines / rows column. Then divide the sequence to 2: (A)(B•C) Then repeat the process for the 2 parts. Stop when you have 1 (or 2) matrices in the sequence. Is this algorithm optimal? It has to be better than N^3 (the usual algorithm)

Patching approach

One of the application I support has Rhel ,solaris,AIX and windows OS server to run various component of the application. Is it a good approach to patch them all together at the same time or patch them at different times based on the OS. I think patching at different times will help in troubleshooting if there was any issues rather than taking the entire application offline during the patch.

How to approach other players with opposing play styles?

Recently, I joined a game of 5e with some strangers I contacted over the internet. Everybody met up beforehand, got to know each other, and everything was coming along great. We have a character creation session, everyone’s mostly on the same page about what we want out of a game: some dungeon crawling, some social stuff, some combat, no evil PCs, etc. Everybody has the classes they want, stats are rolled, and we’re ready to start.

Session 1 begins, and the party’s mission is to map out the wild frontier on a poorly-known continent that’s in the process of being settled. Having arrived, the party is soon approached by a bloodied villager calling for help. They describe their village being razed to the ground by overwhelming amounts monsters, and how they are in desperate need of aide. Before I have a chance to respond, one of the other party members says:

“What’s in it for us?”

While this is an innocent question by itself, I try to argue in-character how we might make connections, gather information, procure clean food and water, get a monetary reward, etc. However, by this point the rest of the party is in agreement that there is no point in helping these people out, especially when the odds are supposedly stacked against us from the number of monsters described. Due to majority rule, we end up moving along. A few minutes later, we hear word from another traveler about a nearby old and musty crypt radiating with dark energies. Again the question comes up, “What’s in it for us?”, and again we move along despite my protests. The party will fight when fighting is necessary, and converse when conversation is necessary, but that’s about it.

I understand that there are different play styles out there, and I don’t expect players to have to bite every hook the DM sets for them, but I set time out of my day to collaborate with people and make stories and go on adventures, not move square-by-square on a grid and roll to map it. I felt like my fellow players and I had good chemistry before the first session, and the DM has been excellent so far, so I would hate to just call this game a total loss. But, the way things have been going, I’m not sure I’m terribly interested in continuing.

What are some ways I can approach the DM or the other players about how we all play without trying to force my own ideals on them?