Tag: possible

How can gambling work in a world where magical divination is possible?

In a DnD 3.5 universe, could a spell such as Divination or Commune allow the caster to cheat at betting on sporting events? (For example, by asking a question like “Will Stan Stormbow win in this gladitorial match”).

Is there any in-universe way around this, such as a abjuration that could be cast on the arena to prevent such divinations?

Is it possible to trace and recover Bitcoin [closed]

I had to learn it the hard way after making mistakes with my precious savings. I tried Forex, Binary options and Bitcoin investments, well Binary options scammed me of 18K and also lost 42k in bitcoin investment to a bogus group. Sometimes I feel like the pressure builds up from some kind of videos online which pushes you to make irrational decisions due to Fear Of Missing Out. My advise to everyone is that you be extremely careful because sometimes you are just better off the way you are! Follow your gut!.

Is it possible to make a common PC bluetooth card identify itself as headset? [closed]

My objective would be to make an application that makes the computer identify as a headset, so I can connect my phone to it and route the audio of the calls to the computer.

I think this is highly related to security. I’m talking about the ability to make a device identify as something else, think about the USB rubber ducky, now replace "USB" with "Bluetooth".

That’s why I posted here. The purpose of doing this would not be anything malicious, I just want to connect my phone to the PC so I can hear the voice of the person calling me on my phone, through the headset connected to my PC:

Phone -> Bluetooth -> Computer -> Headset

Is it possible to export an expired GPG subkey’s public key without signatures?

Based on Is it possible to export a GPG subkey's public component? I got familiar with:

gpg --keyid-format long --with-fingerprint --list-key {e-mail} gpg --export --armor --output public-key.asc 633DBBC0! # for ssb1

and

gpg --export-options export-minimal {key-id}

I also found the following which I added to my gpg.conf.

list-options show-unusable-subkeys

In the context of a Yubikey, I sometimes need to transfer public key components to a new key ring on a new system in order to decrypt an old file. For some reason gpg --card-status is not enough to get the ball rolling. Gpg will keep reporting that no key exist to decrypt the file. After importing the public key component, it works. I read somewhere on Stack that "the yubikey has not enough data on it to recontruct the public key component." (Might add source later).

However, I don’t want to export all old subkeys (hence keyid!), only a select few and I don’t want to export any signatures (hence export-minimal).

So this is what I tried, but did not result in a desired result:

gpg --armor --export --export-options export-minimal {subkeyid1}! {subkeyid2!} or gpg --armor --export --export-options export-minimal {subkeyid1}! gpg --armor --export --export-options export-minimal {subkeyid2}!

If I pick one {subkeyx}!, the output is the same. The combination of export-minimal and pointing to a subkey is not working as far as I can tell. I don’t know of any switch I can put in front of keyid, do you?

Then I tried the following and merged them later:

gpg --armor --export --output file1.asc {subkeyid1}! gpg --armor --export --output file2.asc {subkeyid2}!

But these public key components contain unwanted signatures (and their primary key public part and uid which is acceptable).

I used gpg --armor --export {subkeyid2}! | gpg for reading the output. If I do this with unexpired subkeys, I get an expected result of keys, but if I do this with expired subkeys, the subkey is not listed.

The question: So, how do I export two expired subkeys’s public key components without any signatures?

(Sidenote; meta question; alternative route):

gpg --card-status delivers:

[...] General key info..: sub {rsaX/eccX}/{keyid} {date} {name} {address} sec# {rsaX/eccX}/{keyid} {created date} {expires date} [...] ssb> {rsaX/eccX}/{subkeyid1} {created date} {expires date} card-no: {nr} ssb> {rsaX/eccX}/{subkeyid2} {created date} {expires date} card-no: {nr}

And as we now from gpg -k and gpg -K. ‘sub’ means public subkey; ‘ssb’ means private subkey and the ‘>’ indicator means material is on smartcard. So this all seems to confirm the public material is not on the card.

Is it possible for the runtime and input size in an algorithm to be inversely related?

I’m wondering if it’s possible for algorithms that have monotonically decreasing runtime with the input-size – just as a fun mental exercise. If not, is it possible to disprove this claim? I haven’t been able to come up with an example or counterexample so far, and this sounds like an interesting problem.

P.S. Something like $ O(\frac{1}{n})$ , I guess (if it exists)

Possible visual problem on HP laptop screen

I own an HP Laptop. It’s system model is something like 15-bs2xx and its model number is 3TT16UA#ABA (I believe these are the things that typically need to be known, I’m not a computer wiz at all). I don’t know if my eyes are just being hypersensitive or not, but I feel like my screen has this weird "stippling" effect, little dots of a slightly different color appear across certain colors like a dark gray, orange, or yellow. When I watch videos, there’s always weird spaces of dotty pixels as well, especially around illumination in a dark room. Is this how the computer screen is supposed to look or is there something wrong with my graphics?

Is it possible to lift things multiple times with different castings of reverse gravity?

My players came up with an interesting idea using reverse gravity recently which at the time I let them do because it made sense and I like to keep things flowing but wondered about the actual mechanics of it.

Reverse Gravity lifts everything centered on a point in a 50ft circle 100ft up. 2 of the players in the party had taken it, in player ones turn he cast it at ground level to lift a group of enemies the full 100 feet, the 2nd player then cast the spell a second time centering at the top of the previous spell and lifting the enemies another 100 feet. In player ones turn he stopped his version of the spell meaning player 2 could then drop them 200 feet. As there was nothing to grab hold of on the second casting there was no saving throw

At the time I was unsure if the initial casting of the spell would lock them in at 100 feet but decided to go with it. My players have also asked me if one of them could cast it repeatedly turn after turn. Effectively cancelling it as they cast it a second time lifting people multiples of 100 feet into the air before then dropping them.

Is this a DM decide situation, which I am fine with, or are there any rules stated anywhere for this situation?