I play a Hunter ranger using longbow attacks in a D&D 5e game. I’m trying to understand how the Horde Breaker feature works.
Say there are two targets within 5 feet of each other in one area (Target A&B). Then there are another two targets within 5 feet of each other in another area (Target C&D). I have both the Extra Attack and Horde Breaker features. I attack Target A, then with my Extra Attack I attack Target C.
Now I want to use Horde Breaker. Can I select Target B from the first duo? Or must I select Target D from the second duo because that was my last attack?
In another scenario, there are two targets within 5 feet of each other in one area (Target A&B), then there is another target about 20 feet away by itself (Target C). I attack Target A, then with my Extra Attack, I attack Target C. Do I then forfeit using Horde Breaker because I didn’t use it to attack Target B?
Our office intranet has from today started refusing access from Internet Explorer 11 (necessary as it uses plugins) to a certain page. The error I get in IE is in Japanese, but talks about old TLS versions. If I look at the page with Chrome, on the Security page
Connection – obsolete connection settings
The connection to this site is encrypted and authenticated using TLS 1.2, RSA, and AES_256_GCM.
RSA key exchange is obsolete. Enable an ECDHE-based cipher suite.
I know that the deprecation date for TLS 1.2 has been extended due to COVID-19, but a recent patch seems to have fixed CVE-2020-1118, but in the process might it have broken something else? Note, I do allow TLS 1.2 connections in IE.
In 2003, Adi Shamir and Eran Tromer proposed an ASIC device called TWIRL, which should be able to sieve RSA-1024 using the General Number Field Sieve during a year, “only” using 10-20M$ of investment including NRE and power costs. Now, 17 years later, the cost of such a device should be exponentially lower. Has any research concerning custom ASIC cracking been done for RSA-1024?
My copy of the Player’s Handbook and my copy of the Monster Manual both state that an Imp has resistance to:
[…] bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered.
And then DnD Beyond (without buying any books there) states:
[…] Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren’t Silvered
Meanwhile the Player’s Handbook errata states:
bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks not made with silvered weapons.
And the Monster Manual errata states:
Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”
Applying this exact update would make my book state:
bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks that aren’t silvered.
This matches DnD Beyond’s description but “attacks that aren’t silvered” sounds very off/wrong to me. I have no idea if this wording actually exists in the printings of the Monster Manual, it is just what the errata states.
Which of these wordings, if any, is correct; what is the wording in more/most recent printings of the Monster Manual? If this wording conflicts with the Player’s Handbook errata, which one takes precedence?
Based on this Q&A, it appears that, RAW, cantrips cannot be swapped out on level up like other spells can be (for classes that can swap out spells on level up, such as Sorcerers).
However, in last night’s game, some of my fellow players mentioned to me how there has been a recent errata that now officially allows cantrips to be swapped out like spells (basically, the conclusions that the above linked Q&A have now been contradicted by errata).
I have tried to search for this errata, but I can only find evidence to the contrary (i.e. supporting the linked Q&A), but what I’ve been able to find may not be the most recent errata that my fellow players were referring to.
Is what they claim true about there being an errata that now allows this, or were my fellow players mistaken?
I heard that Zoom is having security issues right now, but even though I’m reading online about it, I’m not finding technically detailed information. Can someone enlighten me on what the issues are? and what the current status is?
Can they prove this virus got into the county by someone crossing a border? I think not!
I assume that anything written or read on WeChat is read by the government of the People’s Republic of China. I understand the risks of that.
However, I would like to understand the implications of using WeChat for other data on my device. With earlier versions of Android, you had to grant all an app’s permission requests in order to use it, and WeChat demanded every possible permission. More recent versions of the OS allow users to grant or deny permissions in groups. Is there a combination of permissions which would allow WeChat to function as a chat/messenger app, but prevent it from reading other data on my device?
What i’m trying to accomplish here is pull in all the rows where there is a break of less than lets say 40 days between the next row.
So in the first example there is an uninterrupted break every month or roughly so is accounted for, so I would like the query to pull in all records here.
ID DATE(INT) 190402 20200205 190401 20200103 177904 20191205 177903 20191108 177902 20191001 177901 20190905 147512 20190802 147511 20190703 147510 20190603 147509 20190529 147508 20190429 147507 20190402 147506 20190306 147505 20190205 147504 20190110 147503 20181211 147502 20181115 147501 20181022
In example two there is a gap greater than 40 days between Sep 25 2019 and January 29 2020. So I would like the query to just pull in the most recent subsequent block. In this case it would just be the top record.
ID DATE 189101 20200129 164705 20190925 164704 20190904 164703 20190802 164702 20190703 164701 20190605
I have started down this road, and was looking at using LEAD to calculate the number of days between the current and previous rows. I realize I probably need to break the years out to account for the case when moving to a new year or convert it to a real date so that I can use some sql functions to calculate the difference in days for me.
After that I wasn’t sure how to go about only returning the most recent consecutive block. Thought I would ask here to see if anyone had any insight on how I to accomplish this.
Consider the following table:
|-----------------------------------------------------| | raffle | |----|---------|----------|-----|---------------------| | id | shuffle | user_id | ... | notify_at | |----|---------|----------|-----|---------------------| | 1 | 4D6G8Z1 | 542 | ... | 2019-12-01 14:00:00 | | 2 | 64G264D | 6 | ... | 2019-12-28 14:00:00 | | 3 | 4IPF93D | 58 | ... | 2020-01-01 14:00:00 | | 4 | D25LF03 | 58 | ... | 2020-01-14 14:00:00 | | 5 | G04LDWE | 684 | ... | 2020-03-02 13:00:00 |
In this table, most requests are not done to the
id column, but to the
created_at, which is a 64-bit timestamp (no 2038 Bug):
SELECT * FROM [raffle] WHERE [user_id] = ? and [created_at] = ?
The table grows by the minute, but that is not the problem, but rather, the records for the
notify_at in the current month are most accessed than the rest. In 10.000.000 records, an index of the
notify_at sums 160MB, which only 1% of these are heavily accessed.
Is there a way to optimize an index (or any other strategy) to make retrieval of the records for the current month snapier?