How to get the most recent modified date of anything in the footer of my site?

I would like to be able to post the most recent updated date in my footer. However, I can’t seem to find a way to do that globally for the site, just for each post/page at a time using get_the_modified_date().

So for example if I make a change to my home page the footer would be updated to that date and time. If I later make an edit to a miscellaneous page, then the "Updated" date and time would change to reflect that more recent update.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Can conflicting descriptions of the recent past be handled better than GM fiat?

I’ve been having a problem in RPGs lately where participants, myself included, have radically different ideas about what just happened on a basic factual level. For example, in a recent Pokémon RPG where I am a player, a significant conversation was had amongst the players and an NPC about whether or not to tell Will’s Alakazam we can talk to Pokémon. In the course of the conversation, from my perspective, one of the PCs asked a question of the group and the NPC responded first. However, another player was convinced that the question was asked and then my PC and another PC responded, and only then the NPC responded. I will use this example throughout this question as an illustration, but please keep in mind that it is only one example of this sort of problem and that specific case has already been resolved; you can feel free to use it similarly to illustrate the advice you give in an answer, but the actual specifics of that advice as applied to this situation are not important to me.

These sorts of disagreements about basic facts can be a serious problem when players end up making plans that rely on fundamentally incompatible versions of the world, and lead to lengthy arguments and discussions. Although this hadn’t come up much before until about a year or two ago, it’s been coming up a lot since that time, particularly since the first steps I outline below consistently do not ever work with several of our newer players.

The current system that we use for this has developed in an ad hoc manner and is not particularly thought out. It goes like this:

  1. There is a disagreement. In this case it’s about whether or not the PC in question insulted the NPC by shutting them down for interrupting when no one else was talking.
  2. We clarify whether the disagreement is about material or immaterial facts (i.e. whether we are disagreeing about what happened or what that means. This isn’t always obvious– "John murdered Sue" is probably immaterial if the issue at hand is whether the killing was justified rather than whether the knife propelled by his hand entered her heart. The important part is to isolate what we disagree about and determine whether or not it is something that we think should be obviously true or false to both characters regardless of their value differences). In this case what order people spoke in is a material fact, and no immaterial facts are disputed– we agree that if the PC in question had shut the NPC down in that manner it would be insulting, but we disagree as to whether or not that, in fact, happened (i.e. whether or not other people were currently talking at the time).
  3. If the disagreement is about immaterial facts, it’s not relevant to this question, but it enters a separate process
  4. If it’s about material facts we survey the group. Generally, in the past, people change their minds or at least acquiesce to our carrying on with things being the other way if everyone but them remembers something differently. For two people we now play with in several games this is never the case. In this case, everyone but the player of the PC who shut down the NPC (myself, another player, and the GM) agrees that no other players had indicated their PCs were talking at that point. The player dissenting continues to insist that we had, in fact, done so, though.
  5. If the group cannot reach consensus in a timely fashion (<2 hours), the GM issues a fiat or declares that discussion between the invested parties will happen elsewhere as the rest of us keep playing. Those side conversations usually take 2-4 hours when I am a party and 4-6 hours otherwise. In this case, the GM declares by fiat that there was a miscommunication in the in-character conversation, the NPC is not insulted because they thought what was happening was the same as what the PC in question thought was happening, but generally everybody is momentarily off-put or confused and then things are worked out off-screen and the PCs are getting along again and the main thrust of the conversation can resume. It takes only 30 minutes before that fiat is given (this is unusually short) and then another half-hour or so to discuss/explain what the fiat means.
  6. If GM fiat was issued, although the disagreement is officially resolved, there are still always inevitably problems of late, unless the GM fiat is in line with the position espoused by the new players, if either player is in the game (they are never both in the same game, so far). These problems take the form of more disagreements about what’s happening, material or immaterial, in all areas related to the fiated thing, which inevitably morph into rehashing the same disagreements that were had before just with putatively a new issue at hand. Frequently the content of the last GM fiat is also a matter of material disagreement in these cases. This starts the process over, usually resulting in another GM fiat after a couple of hours. In this case the fiat was sufficiently concillatory and no further problems around that particular issue arose. The fact that we quickly ended up is a 4 hour conversation about a different conflict between the GM and the player in question related to a different past fiat from a previous session may have had something to do with that, however.

This process is exhausting and frustrating for everyone involved. Is there a better way to resolve these disagreements about basic facts?

Can a Hunter ranger, can the Horde Breaker feature target a creature within 5 feet of any target attacked that turn, or only the most recent target?

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?

Has a recent patch disabled TLS1.2 and/or RSA on Internet Explorer?

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.

Recent research on custom hardware to break RSA-1024

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?

What resistances does an Imp have in recent printings of the Monster Manual?

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?

Can cantrips be swapped out on levelling up after the release of any recent errata?

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?