I was recently reading about the Ork/Seattle Underground and came across an article about the location on Shadowrun’s "Fandom" Wiki. In the article a company called "Fungitek" was mentioned, which sparked my interest for reasons unrelated to this question, and as such I tried searching for it online, and also looked for any mentions of it in the Shadowrun 5th Edition Core Rulebook but couldn’t find any mentions of it. As for my search online all I could find were some German wiki pages about it, which leads me to my question: Is Fungitek mentioned in the official Shadowrun lore, and if so, where?
This is one of those naval-gazing questions that may have actual mechanical bearing. Both Augury and Divination predict the outcome of future events:
In the case of Augury
“the results of a specific course of action that you plan to take within the next 30 minutes”
and in the case of Divination
“a specific goal, event, or activity to occur within 7 days”
Where I’m having trouble is deciphering the caveat found in both spells:
The spell doesn’t take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome, such as the casting of additional spells or the loss or gain of a companion.
A plain reading of this seems absurd to me, basically amounting to
“outcome X will happen unless circumstances are such that outcome X does not happen”
“outcome X will happen unless it doesn’t.”
For example, a prediction of “you will defeat the evil warlock” might have a possible outcome-altering circumstance of “his archdevil patron makes a surprise appearance and obliterates your entire party in an instant.”
I can see a more charitable reading: “Outcome X will happen unless the party introduces outcome-altering circumstances. And this helps particularly in the case of Augury: There is only so much a party can do to alter the course of the events up to 30 minutes from now. But with Divination’s seven days? How is a party ever to know what contingent facts must hold in order for the predicted outcome to occur? What are “additional spells” when, for some members of the party, spellcasting is done as a matter of course?
Official or unofficial materials. Not necessarily a spell available to players; it could be a creature or item ability. Various people from the AD&D 2nd edition up to Planescape (primarily 90’s) seem to remember such a spell, but I have not been able to find any TSR materials or endorsed / published materials with such a spell.
It looks like the police saying that there is a new technique used to scam the lady, but they do not get in detail how it possible to listen to what she was saying when she dropped the call with fraudsters and called the police. Also, I was unable to find anything technical about this scam online.
Is this something specific to the York Police switchboard, or is it something potentially larger than this particular event? Is it even a real “new technology”?
As much as I want to put this on StackOverflow, I think this particular question fits better here.
I hope this doesn’t sound too petty, but this is something that has always bothered me.
I’ve always wondered why the designers/developers of programming language websites don’t just put version managers right next to the initial setup and installation instructions in their documentation instead of long after, and sometimes quite hidden in the side-notes.
Most people (I would assume at least) follow installation procedures line by line. That being the case, and the fact that you usually have to install the version managers first if you have a need for them; wouldn’t it be more logical to bring the version managers to the user’s awareness right around the same point in the documentation as the language’s installation instructions?
In fact, Ruby is the only language I’ve ever installed that started the installation section with something like:
“some language” Installation Options:
- Stand Alone Installation Instructions
- Virtual Machine Installation
- Installation With A Version Manager
So, as stupid as this might sound, I’ve begun to wonder if there isn’t some reason for this. Obviously, I’m not trying to excuse anybody for not thinking of version management up front, however considering that I almost always forget about version management when coming into a new language, I’d assume that it’s at least sort of common to make that mistake.
So, is this one of those globally common bad design things? Is this even bad design or am I just being whiny? Or is there legitimate reasoning behind this, and if so – what? It seems far too common a practice for it to just be by accident. I mean, who writes up installation procedures, then adds version management instructions at the tail end and not think, “huh, maybe I should put this up at the top.” ?
I was just reading through the “Token sidejacking” of the JWT Cheat Sheet of OWASP (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/JSON_Web_Token_Cheat_Sheet_for_Java.html#token-sidejacking)
At the moment I don’t understand how the recommended prevention actually solves the issue.
The solution is to add a context and send this context (e.g. a random value) as a Cookie as well as part of the JWT (then hashed).
However if an attacker is able to steal the JWT by performing a XSS attack and access the sessionStorage, the attacker can also send XHR-requests, so the Cookie is automatically send with it. If the attacker is able to sniff the network traffic, the attacker also has the Cookie value. The only case I can think of where this works is, if the attacker has access to some sort of logs, where the JWT is stored, but this would be another vulnerability (or more).
What did I miss? Thanks
How can we prove rigorously the proposition “Suppose the if in case 1 is true, the equation 4.23 is true”? For given constant b and j, the implication in green makes sense. If the upper bound of j was fixed, the equation 4.23 follows directly. However, when n increases, the upper bound of j also increases, though is slower. It is where I find difficult to prove there always exists a value m > 0 such that for all n >= m, equation 4.23 is true.
We have enhanced Rick Text column in SharePoint 2013 List. When we enter any text in Edit Source, HTML code is generated.
Due to this our custom code is not working sometimes(when
<span> tag is generated).
Can anyone please let me know how to stop generating the HTML code in Enhanced Rich Text(should not change from Enhanced to Plain Text radio button)?
Under which area should we define “Reproduced bugs” details in TFS 2015? Right now, I am writing them under “Steps to reproduce” column.
As an example, if I have a longsword in my main hand and cast a cantrip (or spell with Improved War Magic) can the attack I take as part of War Magic be the longsword in my main hand even though attacking with it would normally require using the Attack action?
Secondary question, the same above example except I have a short/longbow. Can I fire the bow as the weapon attack from War Magic?
Tertiary question, once more the same above example except using either the versatile feature of the longsword to then swing it with two hands or using a greatsword. Can I swing a two-handed weapon or the longsword as a two-handed weapon as the weapon attack from War Magic?