Unity C# XML Serialization broke when abstract base type is added

I had a menu system with 4 different item types instantiated from one XML file. I had always intended to build an abstract base class for them to inherit from, after I knew what the common elements would be. When I wrote the simple base class, and assigned the 4 existing items as derived classes, everything broke! The GameObjects with my instantiator scrips kick this error, now:

InvalidOperationException: To be XML serializable, types which inherit from IEnumerable must have an implementation of Add(System.Object) at all levels of their inheritance hierarchy. UnityEngine.Transform does not implement Add(System.Object) 

I read a lot about why it could happen, but like I said, it wasn’t happening until I build a new, very simple abstract class for the items to inherit from.
Any help understanding “why” would be awesome!

So what would I be able to do to make the 30 feet of demiplane into a true home base? [duplicate]

This question is an exact duplicate of:

  • What permanent spells would I be able to cast to make an extraplanar structure? [closed]

So this character is a lvl 20 hexblade warlock in this situation and I have my 8th level mystic arcanum as demiplane. The dm will probably let us learn any spell regardless of class as long as its not too op. We have a absolute massive amount of money so that wont be a problem. The thing I plan to use the “Base” for is a living space, storage for magic items storage for our mech suits (dont ask, a library since we are dumb and need it, all the other normal house things. It could also be like a war bunker. I am thinking something similar to Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion but permanent. Is there anything I could do other than building it to accomplish this?

What permanent spells would I be able to cast to make demiplane into a true base? [closed]

The character is a lvl 20 hexblade warlock who has an 8th level spell as a mystic arcanum. The DM is very open to homebrew. That’s how this game was described.

If it’s not broken and if the spell is mostly flavor text, it doesn’t matter if it’s on the warlock spell list – I could probably use it. For context, the party wizard has cure wounds.

What spells would I cast together to make a really good base?

Can full first order knowledge base be written as the single sequent in the sequent calculus?

The knowledge base of the first order logic essentially is single formula: conjunction of individual formulas (I guess, I am right). The sequent for the sequent calculus is the formula in the special form – it is implication with the conjunction on the left hand side and the disjunction on the right hand side. Turnstile symbol and commas can be used to write down this special knid of formula. I have heard, that every FOL formula can be rewritten as the sequent, am I right. Then one can conclude that every knowlege base can be written as the single sequent. And every reasoning over this knowledge base can be expressed as the application of the sequent rules (in top-down or bottom-up direction). Am I right?

Am I right about this format? And why the sequent calculus are not used wider in the practical applications, implementations of the knowledge bases?

How does an IMSI catcher “impersonate” a base station/cell tower?

On reading about IMSI catchers, I keep seeing that they “impersonate” a real cell tower or “base station” so that the phone drops its signal-carried data on that machine while on its way to the intended destination.

What I don’t understand is, how exactly does the IMSI catcher do that, or by what mechanism? What is it doing to trick the phone/SIM/connection into saying “This is a valid stop to drop off data”?

Converting from m base to n base without arithmetic operations (Where m

I have been working the last 8 years in try to convert from base n to base m without artihmetical operations.

My hypothesis is that by the same way that is possible convert bases without division (see the tables bellow.) based in a literal conversion you can create an equivalence table that allow this direct translation.

  00011111  |          (2)  |                                                              00011111  | For convert in base 4 you take the follow number of digits.                x               2   = 4 | x=2 ( It is eaxctly)  [01][11][11]| You don't need a math operation for this operation because               The follow symbol '3'(4) -> '11'(2)    [1][3][3]|          

 [0011][111]| You don't need a math operation for this operation because               The follow symbol '7'(8) -> '111'(2)       [3][7]|          

As it is very know the number of groups that you have to use is:

Log (n) , where ( n can be represented as m^c , and c is and Integer) (m)

This operation:

'7'(8) -> '111'(2)   (Symbol(7)->111) 

In my case, is a not math operations, because I have an state machine that is able to understand and reflect (bad joke) that symbol 7 means 111 in the default output (or default queue).

As you know when c is not an integer, we have a very complex problem therefore I was creating random table-states based on random rules (it means jumps of states using genetic algorithms) but It has been a real waste of time/energy.

Now I share my Idea, I believe that all bases must be represented as a sub-languages for other bases and they creates a cycle , It I couldn’t demostrate it as a formal theorem. But my heart, my soul and my migth believes that it could be possible.

For example:

(3) 0  1  2  / 10  11  12 20 /  _______  3^1 (grp)  3^2(grp) 

(2) 0  1  / 10  11  /  _______  2^1 (grp)  2^2(grp)  (4) 0  1 2 3 / 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 30 31 32 33 /  _______  4^1 (grp)  4^2(grp)  Conversion table:   GroupSize = Log(2)^4 Rule: (0/0  1/1 2/10  3/11 ) _______________________________________________________ 

Do you have any formalism to define a base as sub-language of other base for cases like this?

Post In Edition.

Action button placement different for modals than base screens

I’m redesigning a product for iPad and Windows, and currently looking at the way buttons are placed in the application.

Base screen

Here is what a generic “base screen” looks like. Nothing special, just a navigation with some actions aligned to the right, with the content appearing underneath. The content is editable, so when you make a change to it, you must save it by clicking the save button. Auto-save beyond the scope of this.

baseScreen

 Modals

When clicking on one of the links in the navigation, a small modal will appear, which contains a form for editing.

Current design

Currently, you fill out a form or edit it, then you either accept or cancel your changes by tapping on two icons in the top-right of the modal. This has a number of immediately obvious limitations:

  1. Icons are ambigious and should be accompanied by labels to clarify meaning
  2. A destructive action (cancel) and constructive action (complete) are styled too similar (given the same level of prominence) and placed too close together
  3. Actions appear after the form, so the user fills out the form from the top to the bottom, only to return to the top to action it.

current modal

Proposed design

disputed modal proposal

  1. Icons are replaced with buttons that clearly specify what each action does with a label.
  2. Cancel and complete buttons are separated and now styled differently, most importantly: the destructive action “cancel” is styled only as a link as opposed to “complete” which is now a button. This will hopefully encourage form completion as opposed to cancellation.
  3. Actions are now at the bottom of the form.

The problem

It has been pointed out that it seems strange that for the base screens we have our actions before the form (the save button which saves the content below it) while on my proposed design for the modals, they’re at the bottom.

I see his point although the reason for this is simply to conserve space. What these wireframes don’t reflect is the amount of content we’re having to fill into such a small place, so aligning the save button to the main navigation makes sense. If we didn’t do this, we’d have to sacrifice our content area instead by including a new row to accommodate a save button and maybe one or two more buttons in the future. Hardly seems worth it.

My question is this: has anyone else encountered this problem and what did you do about it? Is my proposal OK considering this inconsistency between the button placement on the base screen and modals, or does it really need to be fixed?

Limitations

  • User testing right now is unfortunately beyond scope.
  • Has to work for touch as well as mouse.

Can any player character features alter the base stats of weapons?

Some spells, like Elemental Weapon and Magic Weapon, change base stats of weapons. Are there any player character features that are not spells that alter the base stats of weapons?

Stats being any properties, Damage die size/type, magical or not, +1 +2 +3 etc.

I’m not asking to solve any particular problem, just out of curiosity.

I’m not looking for a list of all the effects that do so, just a simple yes/no backed up with at least one example. I’m looking for RAW and official examples. Please no UA.

Separating vs Bringing Together – Software Project Knowledge Base

I am building a website with Atlassian’s Confluence to fulfill these goals:

  1. Document a complex project with multiple websites (Product Management)
  2. Train non-technical staff to use it Store APIs, repositories, and libraries (Developer Documentation)
  3. Test automation and quality assurance data and information
  4. Will be re-used for final users (knowledge base and tutorials)

Note: the platform will be both used for internal and external users with different UIs.

My Confluence Sidebar has a tree structure which follows the same as the website pages

enter image description here

But one person from Quality Assurance asked to separate their part enter image description here

My original idea was to make this test accounts child of Single Sign-On (contextual)

However, since the person (Quality Assurance) is already familiar with the platform he would like to have minimum information as possible.

However, that could cause a problem since new people are not familiar. Also, they avoid reading the website (they want to be explained in person) which makes documentation a waste of time.

Question: should I make the information architecture together (child and parent in the tree structure) or separate as per suggestion from quality assurance (current screenshots)?

I think this is an eternal dilemma, you try to separate things and it becomes hard to manage (inconsistent, error-prone, scattered and redundant info), while when you put things together people complain there is too much stuff to go through- I have conflicting feedback.

Question2: any other tips on how to solve this problem? Confluence has to search filters and I am making images and videos as much as I can but still looking on the best approach