Native applications not running on the world Wide Web, rather, on other webs

The following types of applications generally based on this world’s main Wide Area Network (WAN) (known as Internet) for full utilization:

  1. Native app: An app that can only be accessed in itself from the device’s native environment and never from a browser; whether it connects to the internet or not, and/or, whether it shares a database with a Web App of the same name or not.
  2. Web App (or alternatively Browser App): A web app like a content website or a SaaS program which is accessible only by a browser
  3. Progressive Web App: A web app that is accessible by browser and if having standard Native App behaviors (like “push notifications”), could also be accessed from a smartphone’s home screen and app store.
  4. Hybrid App: A native app which is written in Web App technologies like HTML-CSS-JS and is utilizing a browser’s engine (but not a browser by itself)

The WAN by the name of Internet bases the web by the name of World Wide Web (WWW) one layer above it.
Types 2 and 3 require a domain to work, a work which will be done on top of the World Wide Web (WWW) web.

Do apps from types 1 and 4 run on the Internet-WWW stack or might they run on Internet with some other web rather than WWW?

Cognito Forms: Need to store data into own database rather than to store data on Cognito forms database

I am implementing a web application where I want to provide the user the facility to create their own forms and data can be stored into our database. I would like to use Cognito forms and give that platform in my application by using Iframes. But have some questions that I am not able to figure out after spending enough time on google. Questions are:

  • The client does not want any 3rd party application where the data can be shared. I know the data is encrypted and secure and stored on Azure (No SQL). But still; is there any option in Cognito forms where data can be directly saved into our database without storing into cloud?

  • We don’t have any fixed forms that we need to create, our main purpose of using Cognito is to provide the feature to end user, where he/she can create his own forms through our application and data (along with form structure), can be stored into our database only. Right now, I didn’t find any option or trigger where, whenever a user creates a new form, it can trigger some action, and through that trigger/action that new form structure can be stored into our database. Can anyone help on this?

How would I force app store to save my password indefinitely, rather than for 15 minutes?

I’d like to either force app store to save my password, or have it automatically entered (just for the mac app store password prompt) when it asks for my password. I want this because “require after 15 minutes” is far too limiting, since it’s a pain to get my password. How can I force app store to extend the duration of saving to indefinite, despite that it’s designed to save the password for 15 minutes?

Note that I know this isn’t the case for free apps. I want to purchase apps without having to enter my password. Is there a way to do this?

“Determinant” rather than “trace” in the alternative formula “Lefschetz number”

For a self map $ f$ on a topological space $ X$ we replace “trace” with “determinant” in the alternative Lefschetz formula $ $ \Lambda(f)=\sum(-1)^i trace(f^*)|H^i(X,\mathbb{Q})$ $

So we have $ $ \Lambda'(f)=\sum(-1)^i Det(f^*)|H^i(X,\mathbb{Q})$ $

What kind of dynamical information we get with this invariant?(This invariant or any other invariant by replacing trace with some other invariant polynomials,i.e. the coefficients of characteristic polynomials)

Can this rather bold version of double extension set theory escape known set theoretic paradoxes?

The following theory is another way of dealing with naive comprehension. It uses the double extension principle, broadly speaking similar to what’s used in Double Extension Set Theory of Andrzej Kisielewicz (1998), but possibly simpler? I’m deliberately presenting a rather possibly strong version of this theory, which might even turn to be inconsistent. I also had presented a version of this approach to tag alternative set theories of Math.StackExchange, which seems to have a simply written axioms also. However the version presented here is bolder!

Language: first order logic

Primitives: Equality $ =$ , and Two set membership relations $ \in_1; \in_2$

Extensionality: $ i=1,2: \forall x,y [\forall z (z \in_i x \leftrightarrow z \in_i y ) \to x=y]$

Define: $ uniform(x) \iff \forall y (y \in_1 x \leftrightarrow y \in_2 x)$

Comprehension: If $ \phi^1$ is a formula not using $ \in_2$ , in which $ x$ doesn’t occur free, then all closures of:$ $ \exists x \forall y (y \in_2 x \leftrightarrow \phi^1)$ $ ; are axioms.

Uniformity: $ \forall x [uniform(x) \leftrightarrow \forall y \in_2 x (uniform(y))]$

Induction: over naturals for any formula $ \phi$ .

This theory would interpret and prove the consistency of Zermelo set theory, over the realm of uniform sets. However, it does go far beyond Zermelo.

Question: Is this theory subject to some forms of the known paradoxes of set theory?

The second question is rather not very specific, but it presents itself. The matter is that it appears, generally speaking, that such approach, i.e. using double extensions, can be effective in evading paradoxes and one seemingly can develop strong theories with rather simple axiomatization that springs directly from naive contemplation of this method. Why then this approach was not favored generally? If one see the cited article of Randall Holmes on alternative set theories, he presents it at the end and only as a curiosity. He mentions that it is hard to contemplate. But is this the only deterrent? or there are certain technical drawbacks to it? What are those?

What are the pros and cons of referring to a user’s “response” rather than a user’s “comment”?

Users’ replies to posts on a blog-type site, or replies to replies and so on, are usually called “comments”. And so long as the invitation to respond is not as cutesy as “Have your say” or “Join the conversation”, it usually takes the form of “Leave a comment” or “Post a comment”.

What are the pros and cons of using an alternative word to “comment”, such as “response”? For example, the number of replies might be given in the form “73 responses” and the invitation to respond could appear as “Post a response”.

Might the word “response” deter some users from posting throwaway waste-of-time remarks? Might it also induce some users whose replies would be welcome to believe that they are insufficiently “expert” to contribute? Or might it do both, reducing the demographic of possible responders unwantedly far? Perhaps the word “comment” is so predominant that the use of an alternative word would be considered tendentious?

Informed and considered opinions and references to research would be much appreciated!

When is it good UX on an excerpts page to use the title as the link rather than “Read more”?

Many of the blogs and other sites with a front page containing excerpts from articles also include a “Read more” link, or sometimes the text says “Continue reading” or give some other such instruction about where the reader should click if they wish to read the rest of the article.

But is it really so bad to use the title of the excerpt as the link, if it’s underlined, or if it changes colour when hovered over, or both?

Can the Help action be used to give advantage to a specific ally’s attack (rather than just the next ally who attacks the target)?

I am aware that usually one has to specify who is to benefit from one’s Help action. However, when it comes to using it in combat, this comment by Jeremy Crawford says:

If you use the attack-aiding option in Help, the next ally who attacks the target gets the benefit.

However, maybe one wants to help a specific ally (e.g. enable a rogue to Sneak Attack) but initiative puts them much later in the round. Still, for some other tactical reasons, it might make next to no sense for the remaining allies to avoid attacking that target in the meantime.

Of course, one could argue that, as long as you can describe reasonably how you provide help to exactly that one specific ally without influencing the rest of the fight, something like this should be allowed. But I wonder if there is any explicit mention of this in the rules.

I’ve been referred to this extremely similar question: Do I choose the target or the ally for the Help action?

My main point of interest is the issue that is raised in the answer by HellSaint and the comments below it. Since this discussion is about a year old, maybe the remaining unclarities could be solved by more recent publisher’s comments?

Thanks a lot for your help! (Horrible pun not intended.)