Why Is The Artificer’s Infuse Item So Confusing?

I’m playing an artificer in my friends campaign but I tend to get confused by a lot of the wording on Infuse Item. The ability seems simple enough but it feels like I’m missing something because the lack of specificity makes the ability seem like complete nonsense.

For starters certain magic items this ability can create such as an alchemy jug can only be used once per day. If that’s the case then can I just use the item, then keep creating more until I run out of infusions?

Also, can I uninfuse an item by choice? The game says “Moreover, no object can bear more than one of your infusions at a time. If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies.” Does this mean the only way to remove an infusion is to create a new infusion and have the oldest one disappear? what if you think the newer one is less useful in the current situation? do you get to choose which one becomes uninfused or is the oldest one always destroyed?

There’s a bunch of other questions I have about this ability but I can’t figure out how to put them into words because they’re just so confusing.

Locate Object – confusing? [on hold]

If you use locate object to find a particular type of thing, say, a gold coin, can you have the spell ignore known gold coins you or party members are already carrying? If the spell locates the nearest object of that type, since the spell does not expire immediately once it finds it, would you then locate the next nearest, then the next nearest, as long as they are in range and within the spell’s duration? I assume one cannot change types of objects during the duration, but must cast the spell anew for each new type. Like, locate a gold coin (in front of me, west of me, or the like) or not already currently being carried by somebody? And is it ok to locate, for example, lead foil? Lead sheets? Refined lead, or the like, since that would be a common way to try to hide something from this divination spell?

Is it confusing to link to another section of a site for more info?

I want to create a portfolio site for my team. I have two goals: 1. Create a section to showcase our projects 2. Have a blog where we can provide updates and talk about the “behind the scenes” of our projects.

Here is my question:
If someone lands in the project section and sees a project, would it be confusing to also have articles in the blog talking about the same project? Is that redundant? Would a user expect to see ALL information for a project in one place?

Or…am I doing too much with the blog? Should blogs on sites like this be reserved for updates only?

Confusing UX for Recursive report parameter

I’ve been tasked with implementing a report parameter that contains other report parameters, for a reporting software I’m working on. The UI, as described to me is really confusing, but I am at a loss to come up with a better design. It is to look something like this : enter image description here and should behave as follows:

  • When clicked upon, the child report parameter should populate on the left hand side. If that child report parameter has report parameters, then when value was selected for it, it should replace the left hand side contents and its child parameter should appear on the right and the parent appearing right above it, like :
    • enter image description here
  • User should be able to go back up to parent/main levels
  • When user enters values for the child parameters, the main checkbox should be toggled to checked
  • When user clicks the checkbox, default parameter values for all levels should be set

All of this was to be under a <select> widget, and I only had a couple hours to implement this.

The sheer confusion of this design, the model I was given for it, and what the expectations for the view-model should be, ate up so much of my time, resulting in only the stuff for the first image to be implemented (except for saving the values of the child parameters. I was lost about that), a day later.

The <select> widget requirement was scrapped (literally impossible, and even if it weren’t, it’s counterintuitive as hell), but even after that, this design is really confusing. However, I’m struggling to come up with something better. Could you help me out?

USB ports – Confusing

USB ports on the right-hand side of my laptop don’t work on my laptop when Ubuntu is being used. (The ones on the left work!!) USB ports on the left-hand side of my laptop don’t work on the same laptop when Windows is being used. (The ones on the right work!!)

Is this related?

Ubuntu is my primary OS and I want all the USB ports to work with it. Any suggestions?

Improving a confusing search for Software License ERP admin

I’m building a system for 3D CAD niche software with Dongle Licenses. Both the customer portal and internal portal for tech support and sales. It’s very similar to AutoDesk and Adobe but we don’t have cloud license but USB Dongles. In an attempt to do a global real-time search with the datatables.net library he came up with this:

enter image description here

The dropdown does not filter but selects from different pools (something like different tables but not exactly all tables).

enter image description here

User goals: find different users or accounts to a second page which they can check and modify detailed information by clicking on a row. This second part mimics a basic CRM/ERP

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

Current search problems:

  • The dropdown doesn’t filter, but selects a pool to be searched,
  • You can still search in real-time for a member when Serial code (pool) is selected and because there is a link established which is confusing
  • I cannot list all vendors and their dongles, then click on that dongle directly
  • I cannot list all dongles used by members (assigned) without duplicates then access that dongle directly. I need to find to search again on the second page (account) Note: We have a security feature which allows the owner to unlock multiple dongles, so in theory he owns and is assigned to multiple dongles at the same time, so when a dongle is being used by a team member there is a “double assignment” to owner and that user, but real clients don’t see this, it happens on the back-end but will make tech support harder. They need to find that account then search again inside that account
  • when searching by member, since not all members have dongles assigned, I need to tell the search (real-time smart) to select from pool 3


  • The account can be a Single-User or Company. Created in SSO without any purchase Not all accounts have members or dongles

  • An account owner is both owner and member (user of multiple dongles)

  • The link between dongle and account is created when dongle license is inserted (ownership) into the account, it doesn’t need to be purchased but it can happen at any time

  • The link between member and dongle is stablished by “assigning” a dongle, but the owner is linked to all dongles in that account

  • Not all member’s have dongles (assigned license)

  • All Dongles have owner if the product was not sold it belongs to house account (Cast) or a third party (reseller)

Possible solutions:

  1. Create 3 pages in the navigation or 3 tabs within and change the name of the page for “Search” each pool (Dongle Serial Code, Accounts and Members). Downside: people could get confused about having to navigate to multiple pages. It is more tedious. However, I’ve seen this in many CRMS
  2. use one global search then filter the duplicates like in Sugar CRM using SQL-like filters, Dev is not happy with this idea and it might get confusing and messy
  3. simplify data structure and try to move members inside the account pool since a team member cannot exist in isolation without an account owner and account. Create two pages “Search by Account, Search By Dongle Serial Code”
  4. SQL joins for cases that relationships are clear and try to simplify the pools (data normalization). https://editor.datatables.net/examples/simple/join.html

Downside: Dev is completely against to do joins. (not sure because it’s hard or they don’t know how to do). They want all relationships to be 1 to 1 but it looks like this is a common thing in programming, it could be done by creating foreign keys in DB and our library has this functionality already.

Ideal user experience: one real-time search without duplicates

Question: what is the proven simple to do the decision to do in this case?

Confusing with the exact location of a shellcode in memory?

When we test a shellcode,we add it to a small C program and execute it in order to see it does the actual job we expect. But most of the time, it crashes saying ‘segmentation fault’. I got the same issue when I execute it on my linux machine. Here what I got from an article. It happened because the .code section is in read-only memory.So the program should copy to the stack itself before execution. Then I compiled it adding -fno-stack-protector and -z execstack.It worked perfectly.

So what is actually happening in memory when we execute a shellcode ??

Submit a Button and Cancel a Link… Too Confusing?

I have noticed in the last couple years a lot of web forms, if they have cancel at all, it is a link. I assume this is to drive the person to the UI element, a button in this case, that 99% of the population would want, but still keeping the cancel element there for those who otherwise wouldn’t know (?) they could navigate away.

While I see the value of directing the user, using different elements seems like it could in itself provide a useability challenge. Thoughts?

A confusing (to me) statement in Esnault’s paper

I was trying to read the preprint “Cohomological dimension in pro-$ p$ -towers”. The first sentence says “If $ X$ is a proper scheme of finite type of dimension $ d$ defined over an algebraically closed field…”. What is that supposed to mean?

Properness is a property of a morphism, not of a scheme. A proper morphism is by definition of finite type (actually, some people define “proper” as “separated, universally closed and locally of finite type” but universally closed morphisms are quasi-compact). Or does it mean that the unique morphism to $ \mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{Z}$ is proper? But then I believe that no non-empty scheme admitting a morphism to the spectrum of an algebraically closed field is proper over $ \mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{Z}$ . Or does it mean that there is a proper morphism to the spectrum of an algebraically closed field, and the unique morphism to $ \mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{Z}$ is of finite type? But then I believe there is no non-empty scheme admitting morphisms of finite type to both $ \mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{Z}$ and the spectrum of an algebraically closed field. Very, very confusing.

Internal Linking – What is Best Practice Today – so Confusing in 2019

After doing SSEO (Self-taught Search Engine Optimization) for ten years and watching hundreds of videos and reading bunches of articles and forum posts I am Totally Confused in 2019.

Years of being encouraged to link from product pages >> category pages >> other product pages >> home page and now being advised in various media that linking from product pages is not a good idea.
I was under the impression that linking via key word anchor text from a product page to the home page told Google what I wanted them to rank my site for.
Now it seems to be "don’t link that way – let Google do its job, don’t try to do it for them" … I kinda get that but does that mean no internal linking?

I have one eCommerce site, 9 years old, that has survived Panda, Penguin, Hummingbird and every other algo and ranks #1 and #2 and #3 on page #1 for its primary keyword search and in the top 5 for what I call secondary search terms.
That site has 200 plus product pages that average 550 words and about 9 internal links and 4 external links to other sites, on every page ! … (and KW density of about 6% +).

On a different site ranking at #5, I removed all the links (internal and external) and a lot of ‘flowery or fill’ content in an effort to move it up … but no change (obviously other factors are involved).

So needless to say I’m confused. Seems that my supposed ‘over-optimization’ is not doing any harm at all.

Back to the point ….. what is best practice in 2019 for internal linking for eCommerce sites?