The fragmentation of the page status introduced by multiple design patterns – best practice for page loading?

In one of the recent updates to Google Chrome, we have seen yet another method of dealing with page loading status with the introduction of the loading animation in the favicon area of the browser tab (by the way, the Firefox browser uses the side to side indeterminate loading state animation made notorious by LinkedIn).

enter image description here

As far as I can tell, this makes at least five or six different ways that you can indicate a loading status on a page, many of which occur simultaneously and makes the current state of the page content rather confusing for users.

So the ones that I have seen include:

  • Browser tab favicon area loading indicator seen in image above (is there a name for this?)
  • Mouse cursor loading indicator
  • Page header loading progress indicator
  • Modal/pop-up page loading progress indicator
  • Call-to-action button progress indicator animation
  • Bottom of the page loading indicator (e.g. when infinite scrolling is implemented)

Assuming that there is a ‘best practice’ when it comes to dealing with page content status, is there a reason why there needs to be so many different ways of indicating to the user that the status of the page is not completed loaded? Doesn’t this provide a very inconsistent user experience and add to the user frustration?

Where were the ideas of vote, accept and commit phases originally introduced?

In the Stellar Consensus Protocol SCP, the voting procedure follows a 3 phase commit i.e. vote, accept and confirm i.e. see section 5.

Is this a novel introduction or has this been previously been introduced, and if so, where? More specifically, I refer to definitions of these given in section 5.

naive bayes – Warning message: In data.matrix(newdata) : NAs introduced by coercion

consegui rodar o algoritmo naive bayes porem estou encontrando problemas para fazer a matriz de confusao do naive bayes pois o R esta retornando apos executar o predict

“Warning message: In data.matrix(newdata) : NAs introduced by coercion” ao adicionar type=’raw’ ele roda porem ao tentar fazer a matriz de confusao da o seguinte erro : Error in table(anatelteste$ Condicao, predicao) : todos os argumentos devem ter o mesmo comprimento

install.packages("e1071", dependencies = T) library(e1071) anatel <- read_csv("anatel.csv", locale = locale(encoding = "ISO-8859-1")) amostra <- sample(2,454, replace = T, prob = c(0.7, 0.3)) anatelTreino <- anatel[amostra == 1,] anatelteste <- anatel[amostra ==2,] dim(anatelTreino) dim(anatelteste) modelo <- naiveBayes(Condicao ~ GrupoEconNorm + CanalEntrada + Tipo + Servico + Modalidade + Motivo, anatelTreino) 

modelo class(modelo) predicao <- predict(modelo, anatelteste)

quando eu chego aqui ocorre problemas de NA

Warning messages:

In data.matrix(newdata) : NAs introduced by coercion

eu usei type=’raw’ e consegui proseguir porem nao consigo fazer a tabela de confusao

predicao <- predict(modelo, anatelteste, type='raw') predicao confusao <- table(anatelteste$  Condicao, predicao) 

Error in table(anatelteste$ Condicao, predicao) : todos os argumentos devem ter o mesmo comprimento

CanalEntrada Condicao GrupoEconNorm Tipo Servico Modalidade Motivo

1 Atendimento Pessoal Encerrada Anatel Reclamação Móvel Pessoal Pós-Pago Cobrança
2 Atendimento Pessoal Encerrada OI Reclamação Móvel Pessoal Pós-Pago Cancelamento
3 Atendimento Pessoal Encerrada OI Reclamação Serviço Telefônico Fixo Comutado -~ Local Serviços Adicion~ 4 Atendimento Pessoal Encerrada VIVO Reclamação Móvel Pessoal Pós-Pago Bloqueio
5 Atendimento Pessoal Encerrada VIVO Reclamação Móvel Pessoal Pós-Pago Cobrança
6 Atendimento Pessoal Reaberta VIVO Reclamação Móvel Pessoal Pré-Pago Cancelamento

Magento 2.3 introduced a view table which causes issue with import of mysql dump. What’s it for?

If you mysql dump a magento 2.3 store and try to import it elsewhere you get an issue due the the format of the view import query.

The problem part is this:

CREATE ALGORITHM=UNDEFINED DEFINER=`PUT_YOUR_DATABASE_USER_NAME_HERE`@`localhost` SQL SECURITY INVOKER VIEW `inventory_stock_1`  AS  select distinct `legacy_stock_status`.`product_id` AS `product_id`,`legacy_stock_status`.`website_id` AS `website_id`,`legacy_stock_status`.`stock_id` AS `stock_id`,`legacy_stock_status`.`qty` AS `quantity`,`legacy_stock_status`.`stock_status` AS `is_salable`,`product`.`sku` AS `sku` from (`cataloginventory_stock_status` `legacy_stock_status` join `catalog_product_entity` `product` on(`legacy_stock_status`.`product_id` = `product`.`entity_id`)) ; 

You need elevated permissions. The solution is this:

 CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW `inventory_stock_1` AS select     distinct `legacy_stock_status`.`product_id` AS `product_id`,     `legacy_stock_status`.`website_id` AS `website_id`,     `legacy_stock_status`.`stock_id` AS `stock_id`,     `legacy_stock_status`.`qty` AS `quantity`,     `legacy_stock_status`.`stock_status` AS `is_salable`,     `product`.`sku` AS `sku` from     ( `cataloginventory_stock_status` `legacy_stock_status` join `catalog_product_entity` `product` on         (( `legacy_stock_status`.`product_id` = `product`.`entity_id` ))); 

My question is what is this view table used for? And why a view?

If we introduced an illogical/logically impossible system into a hypercomputer, would it be able to fully “compute” it? [on hold]

Trivialism is a system that proposes that literally every proposition is true and false at the same time blatantly breaking the principle of no contradiction and triggering the principle of explosion (

I find this system very interesting and I would like to find a cosmological or physical theory/hypothesis/model that would be completely compatible with it. I will explain what I mean by “completely” in a little bit…

Almost all physical theories and cosmological models I’ve found avoid at all costs contradictions, and when some contradiction is found is either ignored or rejected. It has been a strong traditional claim and assumption in philosophy and science that inconsistencies cannot exist in reality, so all these models with inconsistencies are rejected or ignored by most of the people.

For example, physical laws break inside black holes (in the singularity). We would expect to have a lawless “place” inside black holes where everything could be allowed, but virtually no physics propose that. They propose that inside black holes, there are other, yet uknown, set of laws that could explain what happens inside, but because we cannot receive any information from the singularity, we cannot guess anything and we cannot build any set of laws that would plausibly be applied to black hole singularities.

Anyways, the only set of theories that I’ve found that would be compatible with trivialism, are those which propose that the universe is a computer, or rather, a hypercomputer, since trivialism would certainly have uncomputable things that could only be computed by a hypercomputer. I think these models would be compatible with trivialism because they would assume that the universe is a hypercomputer and it would be made of information or something similar. Since hypercomputers (as well as brains) can compute/conceive trivialist systems, a hypercomputer-universe, or something similar, could perfectly have a trivialist nature

But then, here is when the word “completely” takes place: Even though a hypercomputer, or our brains, can work with trivialist systems, there are things that would exist in a hypothetical completely trivialist universe that we could not compute/conceive. For example, in a trivialist system, a cricle intersecting a straight line in 3 points in Euclidean geometry, would be perfectly possible (in classical logic, would be logically impossible). But although we can think of a trivialist system or universe where this could be found on its nature, we cannot know/compute/conceive how would it be or look like. Since we cannot describe things that are logically impossible to describe (like such circle), we cannot imagine/compute/conceive how would that circle be, even if we can think of a trivialist system containing it. And even if we would be somehow capable of watching them from our universe, we would see nothing since these things would be logically impossible to describe and to exist (so no mental states would represent them, and thus, we would not see anything).

So this is the problem I am trying to solve. A hypercomputer/hypercomputational information-based model of a universe could produce a universe where its laws would be evidently “governed” by trivialism (just as in our universe, our laws are evidently, at least for the majority, “governed” by classical/quantum rules). But since no hypercomputational system could compute some things that are logically impossible to describe (like the example I wrote before) not all things that would be theoretically inside a trivialist universe could exist in a hypercomputer-universe (since in computational models of the universe or even in hypercomputational models of the universe, everything that would not be computed, would not exist).

So, is it there any physical/cosmological hypercomputational model that would also assume that things that would not be computed by the hypercomputer-universe would also certainly exist? Or maybe there are other different hypercomputational models where literally all things that trivialism would “describe” or propose, would exist and be true?…

Which 3rd party D&D book introduced new rituals that gave player characters monstrous body parts and their associated powers?

A long time ago, I remember reading a book which introduced new spells that allowed a player to take abilities from monsters by performing ritual magic that gave them the body parts associated with those powers.

I do not remember the name of the book but I do remember that there was a flavor text excerpt where someone attempted to gain the lungs of a gorgon so they could use its petrifying breath weapon. The person either died from asphyxia during the ritual due to losing their lungs during the ritual before getting the monster organ or woke up from passing out with a metal bull head.

In another excerpt I remembered an evil wizard’s apprentice finds that his master was killed by the rat headed human bodied soldier creation that he was experimentally creating using the magic from the book.

I vaguely have the idea that this book was part of a series detailing 3rd party variant “spell schools” but I do not remember what the topics of any others in the series would have been so I may be mixing this up with a different book.

Does anyone know the name of this book or who published it?