Do long-lived races reach social maturity later than short-lived races? [closed]

In most long-lived player character races’ descriptions I see comments about how fast they physically mature and when they’re considered adults. What I am wondering is how fast they socially mature. This isn’t explicitly mentioned.

I ask because to me it seems obvious that probably most races in their late twenties have finished maturing socially. Sure, their personality will still change, but that’s different than maturity.

I have two thoughts about quickly races would mature.

  1. In some sense your "social maturity" is an accumulation of all your life experiences. In this way all races would mature at the same speed. (As in, maybe they have more or less experiences but there is nothing special about their race that affects it.)
  2. In another way your "social maturity" has to do with how well developed your brain is. Teenagers and people in their early twenties still do not have fully developed brains so still have not reached social maturity. (It may make sense to call this "mental maturity" but I’ve never heard the phrase and it seems needlessly specific.) — This would imply that races that are super intelligent might mature faster and ones that aren’t might mature slower. (A problem with this view is that it tries to make a standard meaning of what maturity means,

My initial guess is that all races mature socially at the same speed but I’m curious if there are answers in the lore.

Do rel canonical tags permanently affect link juice, or can they be undone later?

Does placing the rel=canonical tag pass the link juice to the canonicalised page forever? What I’m trying to say is, if one were to canonicalise page b to page a, would then reverting that change (for turning it into its own page lets say) leave some link juice and hence ranking "power" behind on page a or would b simply retain all that it had transferred via the canonicalisation signal it had sent to Google?

What could cause SQL Server to deny execution of a SP at first, but allow it later with no privileges change?

A user just complained he was denied the execution of a procedure. I went to check and verified he had the privileges to execute it. I didn’t change anything (and right now I’m the only one with admin privileges do to so if needed) and after two unsuccessful attempts he tried to run the SP for the third time and it worked.

I have XE configured to catch error messages and it captured twice the error code 229:

The EXECUTE permission was denied on the object ‘storedProcedureName’, database ‘databaseName’, schema ‘schemaName’.

Is there any situation where this behavior is expected?

Microsoft SQL Server 2014 (SP3-CU-GDR) (KB4535288) – 12.0.6372.1 (X64)

Can I use a maneuver to meet the prerequisites for a martial stance, then swap out that maneuver later?

I’m a Warblade in the process of reaching level 6. I have one level 1 Diamond Mind maneuver. Is the following possible:

For my level six feat, I want to take Martial Stance to attain the Diamond Mind stance Pearl of Black Doubt. It needs one Diamond Mind maneuver as a pre-req.

Can I take that feat and add that maneuver, the swap out that maneuver for one of a different school as per the Warblade leveling rules?

If a player casts Hunter’s Mark and the target dies and combat ends, is the spell still functioning for a later combat? [duplicate]

I’m a new DM and new to this forum!

I’m running a game and one of my players is playing a ranger, we’re all still pretty new to the game and ran into a question about how one of her spells, Hunter’s Mark works.

Here’s what happened. We had a short combat in which the player cast Hunter’s Mark on one of the guards. He and the other guards were all eventually killed and combat ended. The players then proceeded to finish sneaking into the house they were trying to break into. A few minutes later, the group ran into another set of guards. So here’s where my question comes into play. Is her former Hunter’s Mark still active?

I thought no, since she did not mark a new Hunter’s Mark target "on a subsequent turn of yours," since the original combat had ended and we had therefore left turns. She thought it was still working, since the duration of the spell is one hour, and that hadn’t passed yet.

Thanks for your insight!

What’s the term for a hash sent early and plain text revealed later?

I think there is a known pattern where you post the hash of a document, e.g. on Twitter, in order to have its time registered. You could then later publish the document and have it accredited for the time of the hash.

I’m sure someone gave this procedure a name. What is that name?

I found trusted timestamping, but that is a thing for digital certificates, which do not come into play here.

Is there a way to store an arbitrarily big BigInt in a bit sequence, only later to convert it into a standard BigInt structure?

I am trying to imagine a way of encoding a BigInt into a bit stream, so that it is literally just a sequence of bits. Then upon decoding this bit stream, you would generate the standard BigInt sort of data structure (array of small integers with a sign). How could you encode the BigInt as a sequence of bits, and how would you decode it? I don’t see how to properly perform the bitwise manipulations or how to encode an arbitrary number in bits larger than 32 or 64. If a language is required then I would be doing this in JavaScript.

For instance, this takes bytes and converts it into a single bit stream:

function arrayOfBytesTo32Int(map) {   return map[0] << 24     | map[1] << 16     | map[2] << 8     | map[3] } 

How would you do that same sort of thing for arbitrarily long bit sequences?

Is it safe to save a user’s email into php session variable for later use?

I’m in the process of creating a password reset functionality for my project. I currently have my website send a password reset link to the user’s email if they request it and validates the link properly when clicked (checks for selector and validator tokens and not expired) before displaying the form to create a new password. The problem I’m having is finding a way to updating the correct user’s password in the database once they submit the new password. One method I have thought of to achieving this, is to get the email associated with the matched selector and validator tokens in my password reset database table and storing it into a session variable so it can be accessed by another php file to update that user’s password in my users database table. I’m wondering if this approach has any security risks to the user or is it a valid method?

How to share information between devices, decrypt it later with private key

I’m developing an app for alert people if they encounter covid-19 positive person. I’m very much concern about user’s privacy. So I need to make a user completely anonymous.

What is want is as follows.

Suppose there are devices A, B, C,

A, B, and C should broadcast the their own UUID via bluetooth When A, B, and C is near to each other A will have B, C UUID’s and B will get A, C’s UUID and vise versa.

Lets suppose A’s find out that A is positive for Covid-19. A will upload its UUID to a central server B and C also checks for UUID’s with the server. When B, C gets UUID list of infected person’s apps B, C will check if they match any of UUID downloaded from the server against locally saved UUID.

But in my case I don’t want the server to find out UUID of A. But somehow I need to send A’s UUID to other devices as well. Whats will be the best approach.

My Solution.

All the devices will generate public, private key pairs of their own. Each app will encrypt their UUID with the public key they have generated and broadcast to the other devices encrypted UUID + public key.

Once particular user find him positive for covid-19 he will upload his private key to the server. All the apps will download all the private keys from all the covid positive devices. and check if app’s themselves can decrypt their messages with the private key’s they have.

Will this be possible ? or what will be the best approach.

Its stupid to disclose the private key. And also it will be chaos to find appropriate public key which matches with the private key also.. But yet this was the only thing that I could think of.