[ Politics ] Open Question : Why didn’t Trump lock the country down in January to prevent deaths?

CNN)If the United States had started social distancing just a week earlier, it could have prevented the loss of at least 36,000 lives to the coronavirus, according to new research. As of Thursday, the outbreak’s death toll across the country has risen to 93,439. At least 1,551,853 cases of the disease have been recorded, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Like Mycroft I also received 72 emails from Mailer-Daemon from me to various foreigners. I didn’t send them. Help [closed]

I enlisted company,JustAnswer, to help me with a bad problems with PC. They took my initial $ 1 and sent me a virtual tech expert. He supposedly worked all day to no avail, then disappeared. He accomplished nothing. He also gave himself a 5 star rating. (probably how I got roped in when I googled company.) I gave them a bad rating and asked for money back and to cancel account; people have 6 days. Some mysterious way, my virtual replies disappeared. The next thing I know, I received, on 2 different e-mails addresses, over 72 Mailer-Daemon replies saying I sent many TO: people an e-mail, which I did not. I need help as what to do. They listen to basic info over phone, saying they are recording, blah, blah, blah, and then hang-up. Hopefully, you can see the copied email sample I have below. Andee31

3 Social networks for gaining traffic you probably didn’t know existed!

Hi All,

As this is my first post (that is except for my introductory post), I want to kick things off with something useful, something that should help you gain a little more traffic for your website/blog etc etc

Anyhow I am posting this under social media, but advanced apologies to admin if this is the wrong section to post this in :)

1. Jooseph.com

This is actually a site where you can create lists, the site itself gets a bundle of traffic, so the idea here is to build a useful list of…

3 Social networks for gaining traffic you probably didn't know existed!

Why cron jobs didn’t be set correctly by Ansible playbook?

I created this playbook to set crontab:

- name: Set PATH to crontab   cron:     name: PATH     env: yes     user: barman     job: /usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/var/lib/barman/.local/bin:/var/lib/barman/bin:/usr/pgsql-10/bin/  - name: Automatically run backup for App1   cron:     name: "Run Backup for App1"     minute: "0"     hour: "3"     user: barman     job: "barman cron && barman backup app1"  - name: Automatically run backup for App2   cron:     name: "Run Backup for App2"     minute: "0"     hour: "4"     user: barman     job: "barman cron && barman backup app2" 

But I only found this under /etc/cron.d/barman file:

# m h  dom mon dow   user     command   * *    *   *   *   barman   [ -x /usr/bin/barman ] && /usr/bin/barman -q cron 

It seems didn’t set task correctly.

Why the most dominant programming languages didn’t follow CSP thread model?


I was trying to ask this question in StackOverflow, but later realized that this question is more relevant to general computer science, not specific engineering problems. If you think it’s not, please let me know.

Recently I’ve found out what CSP(Communicating Sequential Processes) is.

According to the article Bell Labs and CSP Threads:

Most computer science undergraduates are forced to read Andrew Birrell’s “An Introduction to Programming with Threads.” The SRC threads model is the one used by most thread packages currently available. The problem with all of these is that they are too low-level. Unlike the communication primitive provided by Hoare, the primitives in the SRC-style threading module must be combined with other techniques, usually shared memory, in order to be used effectively…

Another article Share memory by communicating from Golang blog says:

Traditional threading models (commonly used when writing Java, C++, and Python programs, for example) require the programmer to communicate between threads using shared memory (…)

Go’s concurrency primitives – goroutines and channels – provide an elegant and distinct means of structuring concurrent software. (These concepts have an interesting history that begins with C. A. R. Hoare’s Communicating Sequential Processes.)

Based on what I’ve seen so far, because Hoare proposed CSP in 1978, it seems that there was no reason to use SRC thread model in programming languages ​​like C++(1985), Java(1995) or Python(1990).

So my question is, why the most dominant programming languages didn’t follow Hoare’s thread model?

Here’s my guesses:

  1. Most programmers back then didn’t know about Hoare’s thread model.
  2. Most programmers are used to traditional thread model.

What do you think?

Dijkstra’s algorithm chooses the closest unvisited node to visit next, what would happen if we didn’t do this?

Why is it necessary to always choose the closest vertex to the source to visit next?

Say instead of picking the closest vertex I pick the furthest. Can someone give an example of a graph where this would give the wrong answer?

By the rules, can you gain “extra” of something you didn’t have before?

KRyan’s answer to the question “Which, if any, parts of the Locate City Bomb are dubious by RAW?” discusses the use of the term “extra” as follows (emphasis mine):

The benefits section does say that the spell deals “an extra 2 points of cold damage,” which is a fairly-common ambiguity in the rules: can you add to, gain a bonus to, gain extra of, something you didn’t have before? Should we treat the spell as having previously done 0 damage, so now it deals 0 + 2 damage, or should we treat “extra” as requiring the damage to have already been present? This is ambiguous. However, “ambiguous” is as far as it goes—the rules use “extra” a lot, and it’s often unclear, but the game never defines it. So this still could work. And ruling “extra” as always requiring some previous quantity could set a problematic precedent for a lot of other things, since the word is used a lot.

This lead me to look up the term “extra” everywhere it appeared in the Rules Compendium, Player’s Handbook, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

It seems (implied by context), in these rules sources at least, the term “extra” was used as meaning, added to something already existing, which is a definition of the word.

Is there an instance in the rules where it’s used in a different manner? The quote above is mainly talking about damage, but this also applies to feats, special abilities, etc.

The GM ruled that we didn’t get XP for killing the boss because an enemy caster’s spell killed them. Is this allowed?

We are playing Rise of the Runelords, and were fighting Nualia and her minions in Thisletop. During the heat of the battle, Nualia was near death at just 12 HP. Her minion caster fireballed the party that surrounded her. The party survived via making the save or simply soaking the damage. The fireball killed Nualia, and the party killed the rest of the minions.

When it came to tallying the XP, the GM rationalized that since party did not deliver the killing blow to Nualia, we do not receive XP for her demise – but we get the XP for killing the remaining minions.

Can the GM do this, and is it legal?