What are some feats that are required to maximize eldritch blast damage output?

I am working on a warlock build for my next campaign and I am having trouble finding feats that would apply and boost Warlock’s eldritch blast damage output. This is because Warlock is not a traditional spell caster from PHB and I am unsure which feats would apply to EB as its a ranged touch attack. What are some of my options for EB feats and at what level they would come into play?

Can you cast a racial spell if you do not have access to the spell slot required?

For example a Drow has the racial spell Darkness, spell level 2 (gained at player level 5). Can he cast the spell even if he is multiclassed (Eldritch Knight 3; Cleric 2) and only has spell slots up to level 1? The spell requires spell slot 2 and that the player be level 5 total, so if he wants to cast it does he have to wait until he has a 2nd level spell slot?

Is Ready required on your turn in order to use reaction abilities in between turns?

Do you have to Ready a reaction to use it? Thus, you would have had to used Ready as your action on your turn and wait for the trigger to use the reaction. Would it be correct to say that you cannot use a reaction without first Readying your reaction, except in Opportunity Attacks and abilities that specifically say they don’t have to be Readied? This is in regards to DnD 5e

How can one algorithmically define the required amount of centroids in K-Means clustering?

Say I have a dataset of n vectors. These are, by nature, clustered so that there is a significant distance difference between any two points within a cluster and any two points in separate clusters.

I want to create a single centroid per single cluster. However, I cannot initially know how many clusters there are – thus I cannot pre-define the k in K-means clustering.

What is the best way to define the k in K-Means, given the dense and clear clustering of the data?

How is Authentication Required different from Access Denied [closed]

I was trying a bug bounty challenge and I was given a vulnerable URL which needs a password to access it.

  • Case 1: When I try to do SQL-Injection in Username and Password, I get a page: access denied “Username not found
  • Case-2: If I keep entering random normal usernames and passwords, I get the “Enter username and Password” dialog box, and after so many trials I get the page which says: WWW-Authentication needed!

How are the two scenarios different?

Is Case 1 different than Case 2 in terms of vulnerabilities?

enter image description here

Knapsack Problem with exact required item number constraint

How would we solve the knapsack problem if we now have to fix the number of items in the knapsack by a constant L ? This is the same problem (max weight of W, every item have a value v and weight w), but you must add exactly L item(s) to the knapsack (and obviously need to optimize the total value of the knapsack).

Every way I’ve thought of implementing this so far (dynamic programming, brute force) has resulted in either failure, or lifetime-of-universe level computation times. Any help or ideas are appreciated.

Is it possible to emulate all dice rolls required for a D&D5e game using just a d6, and if so, how?

This is a question that I’ve asked myself numerous times, but I’ve never gotten a really satisfying result.

The issue is this: let’s assume we only have one or multiple d6 dice (arguably the most common type of dice outside of pen & paper), but we still want to play D&D 5e or another RPG game. The game doesn’t really matter here, we just need to be able to emulate different kinds of dice, such as d4, d8, d10, d12 or d20. I presume that if calculating these dices from rolls of a d6 is possible, any other potentially required dice rolls can be calculated as well in a similar fashion.

Therefore: How can the probability results of a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20 be emulated by rolling only with a d6?

Injectivity not required for unification algorithms?

When learning about a general unification algorithm, we learned the rule decompose, which states unifying $ G \cup \{f(a_0,…a_k)=f(b_0,…,b_k)\} \Rightarrow G \cup \{a_0=b_0,…a_k=b_k\}$ . The question of, “What if $ f$ is not injective?” stood out to me. Say $ f$ is not injective, and we traverse that branch of computation where $ f(a_0,…a_k)=f(b_0,…,b_k) \Rightarrow \{a_0=b_0,…,a_k=b_k\}$ and lead to failure. Is it possible that there’s another way to assign $ a_0,…,a_k$ to $ b_0,…b_k$ such that it’s unifiable?

I was thinking maybe of an example to demonstrate what I mean. This may not be a good example, but say we consider $ f(x,y) = x+y$ , and we want to unify $ f(h(a),g(b)) = f(g(c),h(d))$ then we would fail by assigning $ \{h(a) = g(c), g(b)=h(d)\}$ by decompose, but succeed in unification if instead we first switch the arguments of $ f$ (valid since $ f(a,b)=f(b,a)$ ), which will yield $ \{a \mapsto d, b \mapsto c\}$ .

I was reading a bit about it in this paper on page 6 where they discuss the idea of strictness in terms of decompose, but I don’t quite understand it, and more generally how we can perform this unification step of decompose on a general $ f$ without somehow backtracking on failure.