When Google Authorship was very much still a thing several years ago, the conclusion was that it was better not to include more than one
<link rel="author"> on any given page.
- 2012 – How to implement rel="author" on a page with multiple authors?
- 2013 – Is Google OK with multiple rel="author" links?
Google Authorship is now a distant memory (Mountain View stopped using it several centuries ago in 2016) but I’m concerned that there may still be something invalid or nonsensical about including more than one
<link rel="author"> in the
<head> of a given document.
My use case involves referencing both an About Page and humans.txt:
<link rel="author" href="https://example.com/about-us/" /> <link rel="author" href="https://example.com/humans.txt" type="text/plain" />
Is there anything – I can’t find explicit confirmation – from the WHAT-WG to confirm that this is valid usage?
Or is there a viable alternative to using more than one
<link rel="author"> element?
I made a trickster cleric with spy background. This caused an overlap of stealth and disguise. (Further compounded by me wanting to take hide in shadow … which again granted me stealth.)
What happens when you are granted a skill from multiple sources?
While 99% of the time this doesn’t matter if you roll several dice or just the 1 dice for all the darts, a player did something which seems contradictory and knowing the true answer to this would clear up a lot of uncertainty.
They cast magic missile after using Hexblade’s curse, to add their prof to each damage roll. Then after used the Empowered Metamagic to reroll the 1 for all the darts, into a 4, and topped it all of with the wizards Empowered Evocation to add their INT to the dart.
The way I see this the Hexblades curse would only work several times if you were treating each of the darts individually, by rolling them out separately. This would have the benefit that the Lore Bards cutting words can’t cut the damage down to zero as effortlessly, by cutting the 1 dart that is multiplied down to 0.
But if treated as an AOE the Empower Metamagic and wizards Empowered Evocation would work. This also matters immensely when considering how magic missile works on damage thresholds (others have answered, and it seems to contradict again).
So my question which way does it work?
Telekinetic Projectile allows you to "hurl [an] object that is within range […] at the target". The spell’s range is 30 feet.
My reading of this is that both the target and the object must be picked from within 30 feet from the caster. But nothing states that the path that the projectile flies (from object to target) must be less than 30 feet.
Are my assumptions correct or have I missed any relevant rules?
Also, if so, does the path between them have to be clear as to not provide Cover for the target?
Object <- 30ft -> caster <- 30ft -> target <- ~60ft ->
Select ci.CustomerID, max(dd.DueDate) from tblcustomerinfo ci join tblduedates dd on dd.id=ci.id group by ci.CustomerID tblCustomerinfo **customerid** **type** 384953 visa 938494 visa 337723 mc tblDueDate CustomerId duedate 384953 12/30/2020 384953 09/30/2020 384953 07/30/2020 938494 08/30/2020 938494 07/30/2020 337723 05/30/2020 337723 03/30/2020
Results should be
384953 9/30/2020 938494 8/30/2020 337723 5/30/2020
Character A readies an action to
counter a spell if Enemy Wizard casts a spell
Character A is then attacked by Enemy Rogue, and uses an immediate action (like Windy Escape, or in this example, Emergency Force Sphere) to avoid being hit.
Enemy Wizard was also secretly holding a readied action for
if Character A was to cast a spell, as Enemy Wizard knows Character A is also a caster.
So: Character A
readies an action to dispel Enemy Wizard if he casts spell > Enemy Rogue
attacks Character A> Character A
immediate action Emergency Force Sphere> Enemy Wizard’s readied action
dispel Character A if he casts a spell goes off on Emergency Force Sphere > Character A’s readied action
dispel Enemy Wizard if he casts a spellgoes off on Enemy Wizard’s dispel
DM Ruling: Character A can’t use his readied action to dispel Enemy Wizard’s dispel of Character A’s immediate action because a readied action is an immediate action, per:
Immediate Reaction: A readied action is an immediate reaction. It takes place after your enemy completes the action that triggers it. Interrupting an Enemy: If you want to use a readied action to attack before an enemy attacks, you should ready your action in response to the enemy’s movement.
Is this correct? Or what should actually happen here?
I am new to GPG so I may be going about this all wrong. I have some files I would like to encrypt symmetrically using AES256, but I want to sign them with my GPG key. I need to automate this process however so I’m using
--batch and I pass the symmetric key after
--passphrase. Since it needs to be automated, I’ve disabled passphrase caching by following the steps here. However, this means my script has no way to pass in the passphrase for my GPG private key. My script will be piping the files to gpg so passing the passphrase to gpg via stdin is also not an option.
If there is no reasonable way to pass both the AES password and private key passphrase, I might consider doing this in two steps, with gpg symmetrically encrypting and then a second round of gpg for signing. It seems excessive though, considering gpg can clearly do this in one step if one passes the private key passphrase interactively.
For reference, I’m using gpg2 exclusively and don’t care about backwards compatibility with gpg 1.x.
Here is the command I’m currently using for encryption. It encrypts and signs as expected, but I can only pass it the private key’s passphrase interactively in the text-based dialog "window".
gpg2 --batch --passphrase <my-long-symmetric-password> --sign --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 plaintext.txt
A10th level Metamind has the class feature Font of Power, which produces endless power points for one minute. If the Metamind manifests Split Mind, can both minds access the power points from Font of Power?
The Font of Power ability limits metaconcert, but does not mention Split Mind
The adidas continental 80 off white has recently received a simple, yet charming white and light-blue outfit in-line with the style of its namesake decade. Almost entirely constructed with smooth white leather, this iteration of low-top model is embellished with minimal, but notable details deviating from most releases of the court-inspired sneaker. For starters, the usual two-tone stripe found at the midfoot camouflages with the rest of the clean upper. The only non-white color that appears on this version of the 80s silhouette is “Bluebird” – a hue closely resembling any adidas Originals shoe box – which takes over the branding at the heel, logo window near the laces, and tongue.
Despite its inspiration being infamous for their bad aim, the adidas nite jogger mens surprisingly hits its mark. A change of pace from the good guy colorways unveiled on the NMD R1 — i.e. Rey’s and Yoda’s — the pair essentially nods to its muse’s armor of choice. Black and white color swathes do well to draw these connections with little in the way of quotes — save for the short “Set to stun” at the heel — or sabers to help out as the troopers themselves are, more often than not, identity-less, dispensable pawns to the Empire once and now the First Order.
Despite renewing his Three Stripes contract around half a year ago, Pusha T has yet to fully make use of his time with only a few of his first adidas ozweego women releasing at Coachella, his next being unfortunately canceled, and his “Kingslayer” edition only going out to the most hardcore of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare players. Hopefully making it to home base this time around, his latest involves palettes heavily divergent from the aforementioned, hitting the markets in a striking colorway of greens and blues as well as a yet-to-be-seen “Mystery Brown” option.
adidas Originals is added smiles to the classic adidas stan smith shoes which comes in the form of their branding.This adidas Stan Smith utilizes White leather throughout the upper along with perforated Three Stripes branding on the panels. In addition we have Scarlet Red detailing on the tongue and heel. Completing the look is the Stan Smith and Trefoil branding on the heel which forms a smiley face.
Yohji Yamamoto seems to have fully embraced the latest from adidas, fusing the tech-wear aesthetic with the new 4D technology to debut a new colourway of the adidas y-3 runner 4d. We’ve already seen a red iteration, and now we have received a closer look at a white pair. Dressed in a sharp white, black branding accents hit the upper for contrast.
I asked the same question on Stack Overflow, but I got no answers and I was suggested to ask it here.
- CORP: Cross Origin Resource Policy
- CORS: Cross Origin Resource Sharing
- CORB: Cross Origin Read Blocking
- SSCAs: speculative side-channel attacks, like Spectre
I’ve read this article, but I still don’t understand why are cross-origin isolation and CORB/CORP both needed. Specifically:
- If webpages can perform SSCAs without using cross-origin isolated features (like
SharedArrayBuffer), which I think is what Chromium assumes, then why is it necessary to be cross-origin isolated to have access to those features?
- Otherwise, if webpages can’t perform SSCAs without using cross-origin isolated features, then why are CORB and CORP needed?
Also, since webpages can perform SSCAs using cross-origin isolated features, what is the difference between using
Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy: cross-origin and
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *, since SSCAs can be used to read data just by embedding a resource and
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * isn’t needed for it?