How does Shadow Sneek Attack Progress? Will it work with Strategic Strike?

Two question here. I am currently playing an Investigator in a Pathfinder 2e game. Thinking about going Shadowdancer.

A. How does Shadow Sneak Attack Progress? Is it just 1d6 forever, or does it progress on 11th and 15th levels?

B. Can it stack with Strategic Strike as Strategic Strike is not Sneak Attack?

How To Track Your Instagram Progress

Hey, I though I could share some of the tools that I use to track my progress on IG. Hope it helps.

1- Locowise
THIS site offers a free Instagram analysis tool that compares your profile to 2,500 other Instagram profiles and offers benchmarks against a variety of metrics like follower growth, follower engagement, and most popular filter are shown for your own profile.

It displays metrics on recent posts and growth, a monthly analysis, a history of your posts , the engagement…

How To Track Your Instagram Progress

How do I handle initiative when a new force joins a combat that’s already in progress?

I am DMing a small hunger-games-like adventure where there are multiple parties of NPC who also are participating. It is pretty likely that the PCs will happen upon some of the NPCs fighting some monsters.

How do I handle the PCs joining the fight, do I roll initiative all over again? Do I just roll for the new combatants and add them to the round?

Also see this similar question for Pathfinder:
How to handle some new NPCs who enter a fight in progress?

Does Dekkers solutions to critical section problem ensure progress?

I was reading concurrency control section from Operating Systems book by William Stallings. In this book, he gives three attempts by Dekker to give solution to critical section problem:

Attempt 1

+------------------------+------------------------+ | //process 0            | //process 1            | | while (flag[1]);       | while (flag[0]);       | | flag[0] = true;        | flag[1] = true;        | | /* critical section*/; | /* critical section*/; | | flag[0] = false;.      | flag[1] = false;.      | +------------------------+------------------------+ 

Attempt 2

+------------------------+------------------------+ | //process 0            | //process 1            | | flag[0] = true;        | flag[1] = true;        | | while (flag[1]);       | while (flag[0]);       | | /* critical section*/; | /* critical section*/; | | flag[0] = false;       | flag[1] = false;       | +------------------------+------------------------+ 

Attempt 3

+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | //process 0           | //process 1           | | flag[0] = true;       | flag[1] = true;       | | while (flag[1])       | while (flag[0])       | | {                     | {                     | |    flag[0] = false;   |    flag[1] = false;   | |    /* delay */        |    /* delay */        | |    flag[0] = true;    |    flag[1] = true;    | | }                     | }                     | | /* critical section*/ | /* critical section*/ | | flag[0] = false;      | flag[1] = false;      | +-----------------------+-----------------------+ 

Which of the above attempts ensure progress requirement of solution to critical section?

Progress requirement is stated as follows in the book by Galvin et al:

If no process is executing in its critical section and some processes wish to enter their critical sections, then only those processes that are not executing in their remainder sections can participate in the decision on which will enter its critical section next, and this selection cannot be postponed indefinitely.

This is what I feel:

  1. Remainder section is code executing after critical section. In attempt 1, if process 0 is busy waiting in while(), then it will be unblocked by process 1 by setting flag[1] to false, which is in remainder section. So this attempt does not seem to ensure progress.
  2. This attempt can cause deadlock. So, it may indefinitely postpone decision to let process enter its critical section. Hence, it does not ensure progress requirement.
  3. This attempt can cause livelock. So, like attempt 2, it may indefinitely postpone decision to let process enter its critical section and hence, it does not ensure progress requirement.

Am I correct with these points?

How does progress fail in system $F_{\omega}$ when types $T_1 \to T_2$ and $T_2 \to T_1$ are equivalent?

Pierce’s TAPL book gives in exercise 30.3.17 the setting where $ T_1 \to T_2 \equiv T_2 \to T_1$ (the function type are assumed to be equivalent). In the solutions, he claims that this assumption breaks the progress property.

It is easy to see that preservation fails. How can progress:

$ \vdash t:T \implies t \text{ is a value } \lor \exists t’. t \to t’$

be wrong in this setting?

How to progress Chameleon spellcasting?

The Chameleon class has both the Arcane Focus and Divine Focus class features which allows a character to cast Arcane spells and Divine spells respectively.

It is explicit that:

You can’t use any abilities gained from your aptitude focus, ability boon, or mimic class feature abilities to qualify for a feat, prestige class, or other option.

So, in general, it takes another class to grant entry into another Prestige Class which progresses spellcasting (though some, like Human Paragon, could be entered with no fuss).

Also, the Caster Level of a Chameleon is somewhat special, for both Arcane Focus and Divine Focus:

Your caster level is equal to twice your class level.1

Let’s focus on two specific prestige classes, selected because they are freely available online, and assume that the requirements are fulfilled by other means:

  • Human Paragon
  • Fochlucan Lyrist

The former says:

At 2nd and 3rd level, a human paragon gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (bonus metamagic or item creation feats, bard or assassin abilities, and so on). This essentially means that he adds the level of human paragon to the level in the spellcasting class, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

If a character had more than one spellcasting class before he became a human paragon, he must decide to which class he adds each level of human paragon. If a human paragon has no levels in a spellcasting class, this class feature has no effect.

And the latter:

At each level, a Fochlucan lyrist gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class and any one divine spellcasting class to which she belonged before adding the prestige class level. She does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If she had more than one arcane spellcasting class or divine spellcasting class before becoming a Fochlucan lyrist, she must decide to which class to add each Fochlucan lyrist level for the purpose of determining spells per day, spells known, and overall caster level.

Which brings the following questions:

  • Is the Chameleon considered a spellcasting class, an arcane spellcasting class and/or a divine spellcasting class?2
  • Can a single level of Fochlucan Lyrist advance Chameleon spellcasting twice (1 for Arcane, 1 for Divine)?3
  • When advancing Chameleon spellcasting by one level, does the Caster Level progress by one or two levels?4

Thus, would a X 3/Chameleon 7/Fochlucan Lyrist 10 have:

  • 27 levels of Chameleons for the purpose of spellcasting,
  • Thus access to spells as a Chameleon 10 (progression stops there),
  • And a Caster Level of 54 pre-items/feats?

1 Am I the only one smelling CL abuse here? Especially as Chameleon can be entered without any shenanigan at level 6?

2 I would tend to say Yes to all, in so far as being a spellcasting class seems informally defined as being able to cast spells.

3 It seems no dual spellcasting PrC’s author ever thought that a single spellcasting class could qualify for both sides of the PrC.

4 The spellcasting progression seems unambiguous: a level is added to the spellcasting class to determine spells per day, spells known and caster level; and gaining one level of Chameleon raises Caster Level by 2.

Sub sections in sections of form progress bar?

Currently working on designing a form for tuning machine learning models. The form currently has a progress bar on top with the sections divided. We were recategorizing all the sections and realized that there are multiple sections that can be grouped together. However, each section is too long and dense to be shown as one and must be separated. Does anyone have ideas as to how to show grouped sections as separate yet a part of the same concept when using a top progress bar? Let me know if this is not clear.

Is there a name for circles that show progress through form?

Interfaces that guide users through several steps with one per screen per step often have little circles at the bottom of the page, with each circle representing a step/screen in the sequence. The active circle indicates the number of steps/screen the user has already completed.

Is there a name for this design pattern? I’d like to read more about best practices in this area (the max number of circles / distinct screens that hold user attention, size of circles, interaction patterns, etc).

Auto-skipping steps on progress trackers

We are implementing a progress tracker for a 3 step task. However, step 2 (‘review step 1’) is not always applicable; it’s only applicable if one validation check after the submission of step 1 fails. If the check PASSES, should we jump straight to step 3 and skip step 2? Or should we always go to step 2?

The steps are visible on the UI, so I’m concerned users may see they’ve gone from step 1 to 3 without understanding why. However, taking them to step 2 is a bit pointless, as the only action they’ll have to do is ‘go to step 3’. In essence, we’d be saving them a click.