Does the bane magic weapon property work like greater magic weapon or weapon enhancement for DR

The weapon property bane is a wonderful boost to a weapon on the occasions where its the right bane. One effect is that the weapon enhancement is +2 than what the weapon states, so a +1 bane (human) sword is actually a a +3 weapon against humans. But when dealing with creatures that have DR, the difference enhancement levels matter for overcoming DR, and other sources like magic weapon greater while increasing the enhancement, do not affect DR.

from magic weapon greater

This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

Since the weapon property doesnt have the same wording as the spell, my thoughts are that it would be effective against higher DR types, but I have nothing to stand on for this.

Property “Centroid” of result from ConvexHullMesh[] can not be extracted

As the title describes, specifically, simple code below

ConvexHullMesh[RandomReal[1, {10, 2}]]["Centroid"] 

returns an error in V. 12.2, but it worked in V. 12.1.1 as far as I remember

BoundaryMeshRegion::unsupported 

Is it a bug introduced by the new version? Or is there another way to get the centroid?


Update

I just find it that not only "Centroid", but also extractions of other "Properites" fail; except for "BoundaryPolygons".


Update 2

To make this problem more understandable, let me make some modifications to the code.

mesh = ConvexHullMesh[RandomReal[1, {10, 2}]]; mesh["Properties"] 

This would return a long List of strings as the properties mesh has. And then

mesh[str] 

would return something, at least without any error message, where str is arbitrary one of the elements of the aforementioned property List; very much like OOP (objective-oriented programming). And that is what would happen in former versions like V. 12.1.1.

However now in V. 12.2, mesh["Centroid"] fails, even though "Centroid" can be found in that property List of mesh.

Why is the ‘Integrity’ property required in consensus protocols?

Formally a consensus protocol must satisfy the following three properties:

Termination

  • Eventually, every correct process decides some value.

Integrity

  • If all the correct processes proposed the same value "v", then any correct process must decide "v".

Agreement

  • Every correct process must agree on the same value.

"Termination" certifies the protocol is resilient to halting failures. "Agreement" deters any two correct processes from deciding on different values which would break consensus. But what about "Integrity", why is it required? If all correct processes propose "x" but then they all decide "y" (e.g. f(x) = y), is that a violation of consensus?

Counting a property of every sub-sets

Consider a array $ a$ of length $ n$ and $ a_i<n$ and a array of length $ n$ ,$ b=[0,0….(n$ $ times)]$ .Consider every sub-set of array $ a$ and denote it by $ s$ i need to find a number $ k$ with the largest number of occurrences or the most frequent one, If there are several options, choose the smallest one and then increase $ b[k]$ by one .I need to final $ b$ after considering all sub sets.

My idea is that ,I make a array $ val$ of length $ n$ where $ val[i]$ is number of times $ i$ occurred in array $ a$ .Consider that i am trying to find value for $ b[k]$ then i will create a array $ temp$ of length where $ temp[i]=min(val[k],val[i])$ .Then consider the value of $ val[k]$ to be $ m$ then in a subset element $ k$ can occur from $ 0$ to $ m$ times and using this i will find answer for all of its occurrences from $ 0$ to $ m$ which is a simple number of sub sets problem and finally i will have my answer.

But my algorithms complexity is bad as it quadratic or worse.Could anyone help me.

Is `iss` property in JWT tokens redundant?

I’m reading up on some OpenID Connect documentation trying to get my head around the protocol. I came across the issuer property that is common in the JWT tokens. How come this is required if we should always check the signature of the token against the expected endpoint?

I understand that one can validate against either a symmetric or asymmetric hash, but validation is expected either way.

Have I missed an important feature of the JWT?

Is there a way to discern if the magic of an item is a “trap” or a “property” of the item?

To put things into context:

We just entered the final room of a dungeon and we found some magic items strewn about in the room and some others inside a tomb. Our sorcerer used Detect Magic to know if any of the items was magic, and indeed they were, but we were fearful that they may have any protective enchantment to harm us when we tried to take them, and we couldn’t use Identify since we didn’t have the materials to do so. We discussed the matter with the DM, and by reading the description on both the Spellcraft ability and Detect Magic, he said that there shouldn’t be any way to differentiate both.

Is he right?

P.S.: I know that in the end, what the DM says, goes even if it’s not in the rules, I’m just curious if we were proceeding correctly from a technical standpoint.

Are light hammers broken/underpowered, and would adding the finesse property fix this?

When playing RAW, the only simple melee weapon with the finesse property is the dagger (PHB page 149). Most other thrown weapons of this type (hand axe, javelin, and spear) all do 1d6 damage with a secondary property thrown in — hand axe is light, javelin has extended range, and spear is versatile. This makes the light hammer — 1d4, light, thrown — inferior to these other thrown weapons in damage, and short of the dagger in its lack of finesse. As written, I can’t see why anyone would choose it. Is this broken?

People elsewhere have discussed increasing light hammer damage to 1d6 as a possible homebrew fix. The typical objection I’ve seen is its potential for use against monsters vulnerable to bludgeoning attacks (e.g. skeletons). I am willing to concede this argument, though to me, the RAW light hammer still feels imbalanced vs. hand axe — most of the time, damage type just doesn’t matter.

The historically-appropriate change might be some kind of attack/damage bonus when hammers are used against solid armor types (breastplate, half plate, or full plate), but for this change to be meaningful you’d have to do the same for mace, war hammer, and maul — and none of those weapons need it.

My thought: could we instead assign it an additional weapon property to compensate for the lesser damage (perhaps as a race feature, if not for everyone)?

For characters of dwarven (and perhaps forest gnome?) ancestry, for example, it seems more race-appropriate to use light hammers in place of daggers, and if they were a finesse weapon, dexterity-based characters might do so. Is there anything specific to bludgeoning damage that would make this a bad idea? Dwarven rogues would thank you if it were done.