The situation is quite simple: You cast detect thoughts, and you have two targets within your cone that both fail their will saves. Does the caster immediately know which thought belongs to which target? I haven’t been able to figure it out from the spell description, is there even a RAW interpretation for this?
Don’t: Put in a request with any organization promising “moment results” or “boundless phone queries”
Manage any individual who has guaranteed anything for nothing, similar to “free mobile phone number hunt”
Purchase anything without looking at costs extend from $45-$175 for a similar information. Additionally, pay special consumer phonelist mind to those contribution unthinkably low costs (we have seen various locales promising wireless quest information for $19.95 and even $14.95- – none of them genuine.
Make a buy without comprehending what you’re getting. Never purchase from any individual who confesses to utilizing an information base (there is no phone data set!). Manage anybody that doesn’t unveil precisely what they will give. Numerous organizations make unclear guaranteed dependent on your desires, however convey just pointless data, for example, the name of the wireless transporter
Give a dime to any organization that doesn’t guarantee exact, checked data
All things considered, it ought to be noticed that nobody will furnish you with precise phone search data without doing a real examination concerning the number you give. Anybody in any event, alluding to a wireless number catalog, or any comparable garbage is attempting to scam you.
These are the more normal tricks and ploys. A comprehensive rundown of what to search for is past the extent of this article. Buyers are asked to utilize sound judgment when managing any electronic organization.
This question was triggered by a question with respect to punching with Ogre Gauntlets and counting the unarmed attack as a magical attack for purposes of bypassing immunity.
Basically, it goes like this: If you have a weapon with a certain magical effect, let’s say the minor property unbreakable (can not be broken, requires special means) or temperate (no harm in temperatures between -20 to 120 F), it can bypass the immunity of something like a Werewolf because it is magical instead of mundane. This goes for any minor property because those properties are under the Magic Items portion of the DMG on pg.143.
How does this differ from a pair of gauntlets with the exact same effect being used as an improvised weapon (emphasis added for clarity) from dealing damage in the same manner to the same Werewolf? Or something that’s clearly not a weapon like a Shield of Missile Snaring being used to bash an opponent?
I was recently asked to reset a password due to the fact that the security requirements for the website had been upgraded, and the users have been asked to change their passwords (for those that don’t meet the current standards).
Although the user interface simply asked you to provide an email address (to verify that it is an active account) with a call-to-action to change the password, when the email link is sent to my inbox, it was in the format of a ‘Forgotten Email’ page that had the same flow as if you clicked on the ‘Forgotten Email?’ link commonly seen at the sign-in page.
Is it simply more convenient to use exactly the same process, or is it simply lazy design or development not to make this distinction as it clearly has some effect on the user experience? Is this a common practice and if so why?
I added an external app to show an Org chart inside our sharepoint modern page, now the app will read the users’ info and their managers from the sharepoint user profile service. when i first load the Org chart i find that some leavers are showing, which is something we do not want to have, so i apply the following filtering inside the Org chart external app:-
SPS-HideFromAddressLists == “No” || SPS-HideFromAddressLists == “False”
and a lot of leavers will no more show which is great. but still we have couple of users who are blocked, as follow:-
but still been shown inside the Org chart. so my question is which property inside the sharepoint user profile service indicates if the user is Blocked or not? so i can add additional filtering to the Org chart app to exclude blocked users.
I have three statuses to display on a table (delivered, cancelled internal and cancelled external) as the title says, how can I distinguish cancel internal and cancel external so the users see the difference in a glance.
Based on what is explained in How to disable HP Cartridge Protection, genuine ink cartridges may come with cartridge protection embedded in their chip. Once an ink cartridge is installed, printer will mark it as protected.
What is embedded in the chip?
How can we make sure that it is original and not duplicated with a 3rd party?
Is this a safe and well-known offline security protocol? (It will be great if someone can point me to a reference about it.)
In my code and comments, I use the word
user to refer to two related but conceptually different concepts:
- The physical user who is interacting with (the currently running instance of) my app
- Entities representing any instances of (1), as they are represented in the app.
For example, when I open a browser, I am an example of the first concept; I am a person interacting with the app. But when I open a social media app, I can see and interact with other users; they are examples of the second concept. Note that, in the social media example, there would also be an entity representing myself in the app, and so I am both the concept-1 user, and a concept-2 user.
Currently, in an attempt to make the distinction clear, I usually refer to the first concept as “the user”, and the second as “a user”, but I do not feel that it is very effective. Are there other names I could substitute for either use of the name “user” to indicate its intended meaning?
Is there a standard/definitive way to distinguish the end-entity cert in a PKCS#7 (P7B) cert chain? I believe the PKCS#7 standard doesn’t not specify sequence when ordering the certs in the chain, but most tools do sequence them in (either bkw or fwd) signing order). And I know an end cert would have different owner/issuer CNs (root’s would be the same for both), was wondering if there was a foolproof differentiator say, in the case of an end and intermediate cert, where both would have different owner/issuer (right?). Thx!
I hate chatbots. How can I detect them in chatboxes? For instance, I went to this website, and a chatbox appeared, offering help. The conversation is below:
The last answer is too generic. It clearly didn’t engage with my request of proof. A human would have most likely reacted somehow to it.
Then, I went into the website using another computer, and again engaged in a talk (with the same “subject”), receiving no reply:
This doesn’t proof anything, but it implies either an algorithm with no space for digression, or a human in super very restricted environment.
So, the question is, how can I distinguish between a bot and a human in a chat? Are there specific type of questions that have been shown to unmask one from the other, with great certainty?