Is there always a “designated” person to lead/move the party?

After have played only a few session (actually 5 sessions of 2-4 hours) I’ve noticed something that I found quite strange.
In our group we are 4 players: I (Newbie), A (Experienced), B (Newbie like me), C (Beginner).

This is an optional description of them that you don’t have to read if you don’t want.

  • I‘m always quite quiet, looking for in the situation trying to understand the scenario and the behavior of both NPC and the other PCs (AKA: learning). Also, I always take care of the team, I mean, I always try to do the most wise and less dangerous or self-destructive actions (like ask forgiveness to someone that C tried to persuade with a low roll) – when they give me a chance.
  • A is 100% of the time roleplaying, he is really in his character and play as him character would do. Even when he speak, he speak as if his character would do, his way of play it’s inspiring. Like a good paladin he helps weak NPC, he complete his promises and fight with evil creatures until death (actually he use his body as a shield for us). Also, basically he is the only reason why we are doing the campaign of the DM (he offer him self to protect a lady while we are moving his to another safer location).
  • B is really indecisive (maybe a bit like me, but I don’t start speaking randomly when I don’t know what to do). Sometimes he has some interesting ideas using his druid’s spells but it’s difficult for him explain that ideas. He is the most charismatic person in the group but he almost never talk (and when he do it he has really bad rolls). Also, I am not sure if this is his natural behaviour or if he was depressed by his bad rolls, but in the last session he get drunk (his PC not himself), cast a destructive spell randomly “because of his drunkness” and killed C… he always do roleplaying in the worst situations…
  • C is interesting, great part of time he is wishpering (secret chat) with the DM (I know that because sometimes they forget to use the whisper command) and he do strange but also interesting actions (like try to take a raven and discover actually they were 3 druids, try to steal a horse, get an arrow shot, be killed by B and all of us be kicked and banished from the tavern… all in the same hour, when our actual mission was get some information of a certain person).

Okay, that was our team description. The problem or curious thing I note is that A is always moving or leading the group with his perfect roleplaying, we are the 80% of time following him, while he is talking with an NPC we are just looking around the place, and when he want to do something (kill some harpies or defend a lady) we follow his command, willing (like me), or unwilling (like B).

But, when A isn’t present (2 of the 5 sessions) the session get slower, the DM explain the situation and… we don’t answer, we aren’t sure what to do, our only reason to protect the lady is that A convinced us, he has the plan, not us (also, in the same day he wasn’t present we reach our destination so we wasn’t sure what to do at next). Because no one was doing something and the silence was getting longer I felt the responsibility/obligation of keep moving the session in order to not get stuck, and I tried to do my best, but it was difficult, I don’t use to talk so much and try to give orders to people that are’t willing to obey me or has different opinions.

Luckily, in the first time I managed to move them to a shop place, and the DM used the rest of the session’s time to sell items. But in the second time, I barely move them to a tavern and I get exhausted, they started doing stupid and unproductive things (well, B had an interesting idea, talk to the drunk people in order to gather information, sadly, he also got drunk) while I was trying to get some information, while at the same time NPC weren’t willing to give me that information and they started looking us (with a focus on me) in an uncomfortable way.

My question is: Is it normal that there is always one PC designated to lead the whole party (talk with NPC, gather information, give orders, etc)? Also, in the case that “the leader” isn’t present, How can I (as player) encourage the others PCs to keep moving in the campaign and not get stuck or do unproductive actions?

why not comile a designated language directly to microservices?

That’s not serious, ok? So…

there’s so much mess and annoying articles and whatever around the m-word, that the question popped up, why not to compile some language directly to m-s to eliminate all the noise once and for all and cover as many other buzzwords as possible on the way? so instead of “oh, how do I shredder my odd monolith to sexy m-s?” just: “type. compile. deploy. (covering m-s, immutability, pure functions, actors, event sourcing, polyglot programming…) “, right?

To make it easy, let’s assume everything’s super-functional, immutable and trendy and looks somehow like Scala, e.g.

let v = if (a > //php// b) {a – //erlang// b} else { b + //c++// a}

What do we do with this? We create 4 microservices (one each for “>”, “-“, “+” and another for the if-statement itself). We need some api-gateway to call this somehow, but that’s a mundane detail. We can add annotations (/c++/) to tell the compiler which target language/environment should be used per service, so each software-fundamentalist calcification in your company will be happy.

Obviously an actor based approach will be hugely helpful, giving us lock-free message processing, that the “+” microservice can process any amount of incoming calls and the “if” any amounts of propagated results from “>”, “+” etc. Everything will be phatastically parallel, except for if-statements in the context of recursions.

By persisting all messages passed we should be able to replay the whole thing and manipulate it at every level, giving debugging a new meaning. Maybe also all this service-mesh stuff can be replaced digging in the message log.

I’m also tempted to give it Javascript-like no-datatype semantics, so no matter what you feed it, you’ll always get a result, right?

Thoughts appreciated!

Prevent token sharing: chained single-use tokens VS a designated invalidation feature


Situation:

  • A Client is requesting a resource from a Host multiple times, usually with minutes or hours between requests.
  • The Client has a signed, verifiable token, which we’ll call a Receipt, that asserts that they should be allowed to access the resource. (The Receipt will eventually expire, say at the end of the month.)
  • The Host has no way of knowing (and should have no way of knowing) who the Client is beyond the fact that a given receipt is being reused.

Problem:

Receipts cost money. (We’re building a micro-transaction service; so they cost ~0.10USD) We don’t want users (Clients) posting their Receipts online for public use, or otherwise sharing Receipts. It is not critical that nobody can share Receipts, but sharing Receipts should generally be inconvenient, and hypothetical systems for sharing receipts shouldn’t scale well.

Note that in this model a “user” may have multiple “Clients” running on different machines, and will share Receipts among their Clients.

Proposed Solutions:

  1. Have the Client create a public/private key pair for each receipt (or however often the Client wants to). The public key will be submitted with the Receipt, and whenever the Host sees a given Receipt for the first time they’ll store the accompanying public key so they can verify that future submissions came from the same person (even though they don’t know who that is).
    • cons: This just moves the “secret that shouldn’t be shared” from the Receipt to the private key.
    • pros: A private key really is easier to keep secret, in particular because, while the Receipt is sent to the Host, the private key never leaves the Client’s control.
  2. Have the Host give the Client a single-use Token (as part of their normal response) to be included with their next submission of a given Receipt. These Tokens can be quite small. Re-submission of a Receipt (even once) without the expected Token is evidence that the receipt has been shared.
    • cons: This will make both systems (Client and Host) harder to implement. It’s convoluted and error-prone. Because Clients owned by a single user will share Receipts, some “false positives” are inevitable. Furthermore, sharing Receipts inappropriately is still possible using a system not too different from how well-behaving users will share Receipts among their devices. In this sense this solution relies on incompetent members of they hypothetical sharing pool accidentally violating the Token chain.
    • pros: Building a sharing pool would be relatively difficult, and as a pool scaled up in members and usage it would become increasingly non-performant (because of locking) or increasingly likely to break Receipts (because they’d been noticed as shared). Additionally, a “good samaritan” in the sharing pool would be able to break the shared Receipts by intentionally violating the Token chains.
  3. Give “good samaritans” a specific function for invalidating receipts.
    • cons: Does nothing to directly prevent sharing, it relies entirely on the idea that any hypothetical sharing pool would either not scale, or eventually be infiltrated by some kind of defector.
    • pros: It’s much easier to implement. Additionally, if combined with #1, then the Host would have a signed invalidation request they could present if their decision to reject subsequent submissions of that Receipt were ever challenged.

Originally I was planing on doing #1 and #2,
but having thought about it for a couple days I’m thinking #1 and #3 (or maybe just #3) would be easier and good enough.

Do people have suggestions for any (combination) of the above solutions, or other solutions I haven’t listed?

Are there important angles I’ve overlooked?

Can AppleScript select text after my cursor between designated characters?

I would like an AppleScript to start from my current cursor location (or the end of the current selection if there is one), scan forward to the next “;” or “(“, then select all text until before the next “)” or “;”. Then drop any spaces or “[” or “]” from each end of the selection.

If I were to do this with “brute force”, it would look like this:

  1. step cursor forward until I pass “(” or “;”
  2. continue stepping forward until I reach a character that is not ” ” or “[“.
  3. begin selection
  4. select forward until I reach “)” or “;”
  5. reduce selection until previous character is not ” ” or “]”

Example:

If my cursor is at the beginning of the block:

JSONSetElement ( json ; [ keyOrIndexOrPath ; value ; type ]; [ keyOrIndexOrPath ; value ; type ]; )

I want the AppleScript to first select “json”, then “keyOrIndexOrPath”, then “value”, then “type”, then “keyOrIndexOrPath”, etc.

Average ( field {; field…} )

Would select “field {“, then “field…}”

Insert into designated table if one of the options from radio is chosen – help [on hold]

I have my register form where u can choose type of account ( for example Type1 and Type2) and if u choose type of your account then it creates an account in the designated table ( but it doesn’t work)

<div class="custom-control custom-radio">     <input type="radio" class="custom-control-input" id="customControlValidation2" name="type" value="type1" required>     <label class="custom-control-label" for="customControlValidation2">Type1</label>   </div>    <div class="custom-control custom-radio">     <input type="radio" class="custom-control-input" id="customControlValidation3" name="type" value="type2" required>     <label class="custom-control-label" for="customControlValidation3">Type2</label> 

add_new_user.php

$  type=$  _POST["type"];  if ($  type='type2') {     $  query = "INSERT INTO type2_acc VALUES(";     $  query .= "NULL, '$  name', '$  pass', '$  email')"; } if ($  type = "type1"){     $  query = "INSERT INTO type1_acc VALUES(";     $  query .= "NULL, '$  name', '$  pass', '$  email')";} 

Everytime it add account into type1_acc table, doesn’t matter if i choose type2. How change it?