Which version of A/B do i show if you happen to get different versions in two instances?

Let’s say I’m doing A/B testing, and this one particular user gets randomly assigned into group B for example. I have a choice right away to either store that on their account in my database, or on their browser. Then tomorrow, that same person visits the website from another device, and randomly gets group A assigned, and sees the A-version of the website. And then, from this new device where they were viewing version A so far, they now sign into their account.

Would it be correct to now load everything B, which has potentially been stored on their account? Or would it be correct to persist the current visit, and keep showing A in this local browser? Or, go so far with persisting the new visit to actually store this new version A onto their account for any further page renders from their first device.

This is all assuming that the different versions of the site differ visually, and significantly, so, what the user expects is therefore quite important.

How do you choose active effects when two instances of the same spell/feature overlap?

There are two slightly different rules when it comes to overlapping game features, one from the PHB (post-errata) and one from the DMG (post-errata):

PHB:

The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect – such as the highest bonus – from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.

DMG:

Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap.

The current answer to my question “Do the Stone Golem's Slow feature and the Slow spell combine?” states the following:

[…] Backed by the PHB’s mention of effect-based potency, I compare each individual effect two features of the same name have and then pick the strongest for each. That also constitutes that the unique parts of one feature are compared against “nothing”, meaning by virtue of existing they’d trump the lack of any counterpart in their twin […]

And goes on to apply this method to blindness/deafness allowing both effects to persist simultaneously in direct contrast to the current answer to the following: “If you cast Blindness/Deafness on the same creature twice, what conditions are applied?”

Which method of comparing two features is correct:

  1. One feature/spell is determined to be “more potent” and all effects of the other feature/spell are ignored.

  2. The effects are compared one-by-one, thus different parts of each feature/spell can be active at once.

Practical hard 3-sat instances

The $ 3-SAT$ problem is known to be NP-complete problem. Which means that (as far as I understand), unless $ P \neq NP$ , for every algorithm $ A$ which decides $ 3-SAT$ , $ A$ runs in super polynomial time (I know that this is not well defined). A stronger assumption is the “Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis ” which states that every algorithm has to run in worst case exponential time.
Does that mean, for example, that every algorithm $ A$ (here I refer to a “real” or practical implementation, such as Glucoses, DPLL, Z3, etc.), has an instance of size, say 200, which $ A$ will not be able to solve in a reasonable time? I see many sat solvers solving formulas with millions of variables in very short time; and I am aware of subsets of $ 3-SAT$ which are easy, such as Horn clauses, or a random instance with a known density – but it seems that these solvers work amazingly fast without any assumptions on the input.
I have searched for Sat benchmarks, or instances which should be hard, but when running them on a modern sat solver, it doesn’t seem to be a problem.
It is known that complexity assumptions (or claims) are about the asymptotic behavior, my question is: do we know for which $ n_0$ these assumptions “kick in” in the case of $ 3-SAT$ ? Can we generate, or at least be confident of the existence of a relatively small formula ($ < 200$ ), such that every algorithm requires $ \sim2^{200}$ operations?

Instances of these sorts of weight control plans are the emergency

Leptitox Instances of these sorts of weight control plans are the emergency clinic diet (initially proposed to cause individuals to shed a couple of pounds rapidly before an activity), the cabbage soup diet, the juice diet and furthermore the Sonja Bakker diet is viewed as an accident diet What are the outcomes of an accident diet? On the off chance that you pursue an accident diet, you will lose a great deal of weight for the time being, however there is a decent shot that you won’t get enough supplements. http://bricklanecurryfestival.com/

Random restarts for unsatisfiable instances

In the worst case, Boolean satisfiability (assuming P!=NP) takes exponential time. Nonetheless, modern SAT solvers using variants of DPLL, are able to solve enough instances to be useful in practice.

One technique used, that has shown good results in practice, is random restart. Intuitively, randomly restarting means there is a chance of getting luckier with guessing the right variable assignments that would lead to a quick solution.

The same intuition suggests this should be much more effective when the problem instance is in fact satisfiable (so you only need to guess a set of variable assignments that constitute a solution) than if it is not (so in principle you have to check all possible assignments anyway, modulo sections of the search space that can be skipped via techniques like unit propagation and non-chronological backtracking, which are at least not obviously sensitive to the initial guesses).

Is the second intuition correct? Are random restarts in fact much more effective, on average, in cases where the problem instance is in fact satisfiable?

Site Searcher Software(designed to spider any web site looking for all instances of either a keyword for $7

The “Site Searcher” is designed to spider any web site looking for all instances of either a keyword or URL. User manual included!Submitted On:10 Jul 2017File Size:3,370.05 KbLicenserivate Label RightsProduct Terms [YES]Can be sold[YES]Can be used for personal use[YES]Can be packaged with other products[YES]Can modify/change the sales letter[YES]Can modify/change the main product[YES]Can modify/change the graphics and ecover[YES]Can be added into paid membership websites[YES]Can put your name on the sales letter[YES]Can be offered as a bonus[YES]Can be used to build a list[YES]Can print/publish offline[YES]Can convey and sell Personal Use Rights[YES]Can convey and sell Resale Rights[YES]Can convey and sell Master Resale Rights [NO]Can be given away for free[NO]Can be added to free membership websites[NO]Can convey and sell Private Label Rights

by: cutkatty
Created: —
Category: WordPress
Viewed: 157


TeraDelta – SSD-based OpenVZ instances, NVMe-based KVM instances and KVM Storage instances

TeraDelta reached out to us, this is their first time being featured here.
They offer SSD-based OpenVZ instances, NVMe-based KVM instances and KVM Storage instances.
The specific offers they are sharing with us today are listed below and are out of Los Angeles, CA, Dallas, TX and Auburn, VA. These are being promoted to us as significantly lower in price than the competition. We have been told that one of the things that makes these offers so attractive is that they accept cryptocurrencies as payment.
Something to keep in mind when ordering, all services are set up within 8 hours or less as they do manual anti-fraud checks.

Their WHOIS is public, and you can find their ToS/Legal Docs here. We have been told that they are accepting PayPal, Credit Cards (via 2Checkout), and Bitcoin/Litecoin/Ethereum/Ripple via CoinPayments as payment methods.

Here’s what they had to say: 

“We are a registered IT Solutions company based in Manila, previously mainly dealing with custom development solutions for local businesses. We have expanded to offer cloud hosting and management services in the second quarter of 2019. Our team is a group of professionals who have a ton of experience in the field.”

Here’s the offers: 

OpenVZ SSD: VZ-S

  • 25GB SSD Storage
  • 1TB Bandwidth
  • 1 Fair-Share CPU
  • 1GB RAM
  • 1 Gbps Network Speed
  • Basic DDoS Protection
  • Optional DirectAdmin License @ +$ 5/mo
  • Additional IPv4 @ +$ 1/month/IP
  • Setup Time: 8 hours
  • Locations: California/Texas/Virginia
  • Price: $ 3.50/month or $ 35/year (2 months free!)
  • [ORDER HERE]

OpenVZ SSD: VZ-M

  • 50GB SSD Storage
  • 1TB Bandwidth
  • 1 Fair-Share CPU
  • 2GB RAM
  • 1 Gbps Network Speed
  • Basic DDoS Protection
  • Optional DirectAdmin License @ +$ 5/mo
  • Additional IPv4 @ +$ 1/month/IP
  • Setup Time: 8 hours
  • Locations: California/Texas/Virginia
  • Price: $ 7.00/month or $ 70.00/year (2 months free!)
  • [ORDER HERE]

KVM NVMe: KVM-S

  • 10GB NVMe Storage
  • 1TB Bandwidth
  • 1 Fair-Share CPU
  • 1GB RAM
  • 1 Gbps Network Speed
  • Basic DDoS Protection
  • Optional DirectAdmin License @ +$ 5/mo
  • Additional IPv4 @ +$ 1/month/IP
  • Setup Time: 8 hours
  • Locations: California/Texas/Virginia
  • Price: $ 3.50/month or $ 35/year (2 months free!)
  • [ORDER HERE]

KVM NVMe: KVM-M

  • 30GB NVMe Storage
  • 1TB Bandwidth
  • 1 Fair-Share CPU
  • 2GB RAM
  • 1 Gbps Network Speed
  • Basic DDoS Protection
  • Optional DirectAdmin License @ +$ 5/mo
  • Additional IPv4 @ +$ 1/month/IP
  • Setup Time: 8 hours
  • Locations: California/Texas/Virginia
  • Price: $ 9.00/month or $ 90/year (2 months free!)
  • [ORDER HERE]

KVM Storage: STO-S

  • 1024 GB RAID-6 Storage
  • 5TB Bandwidth
  • 1 Fair-Share CPU
  • 1GB RAM
  • 1 Gbps Network Speed
  • Basic DDoS Protection
  • Optional DirectAdmin License @ +$ 5/mo
  • Additional IPv4 @ +$ 1/month/IP
  • Setup Time: 8 hours
  • Locations: California/Texas/Virginia
  • Price: $ 7.00/month or $ 70/year (2 months free!)
  • [ORDER HERE]

NETWORK INFO:

Psychz Networks (California)

Test IPv4: 104.149.18.203
Test IPv6: 2604:6600:0:c::2

Test file: http://lg.lax.psychz.net/200MB.test

Psychz Networks (Texas)

Test IPv4: 45.34.12.147
Test IPv6: 2604:6600:2000:38::3

Test file: http://lg.texas.psychz.net/200MB.test

Psychz Networks (Virginia)

Test IPv4: 172.106.7.194
Test IPv6: 2604:6600:2002:4::1531:a1e7

Test file: http://lg.va.psychz.net/200MB.test

More offers are available, but are > $ 10 and are not included in this offer.
Please let us know if you have any questions/comments and enjoy!

The post TeraDelta – SSD-based OpenVZ instances, NVMe-based KVM instances and KVM Storage instances appeared first on Low End Box.

Best way to divide CPU along all sql instances on 1 server

I have a physical server with 40 CPU’s (hyperthreaded) with 2 numa nodes. On this server i have 20 sql instances installed and i need to make sure each sql instance have some dedicated cpu assigned into. The problem is that sometimes one or more of the instances are using all of the cpu’s and then about 4 or 5 instances are out of CPU resources and failing. What is the best way to spread cpu along all of the instances so each instance have some at the minimum?

Thank you