QueryString in Search Result webpart does not work for multi-words keyword search

We have SharePoint Pages on O365 with the title of the Page is “Jeffer Steak Seafood”. We can search this page by typing “Jeffer Seafood” in the search result page. However, we create a new page and add search result webpart. Then, we change the query to receive the parameter such as {QueryString.keywords}.

When we access this page with parameter keywords=Jeffer, we get the search result. But when we type keywords=Jeffer Seafood, we get no results. It seems that the QueryString is transform to “Jeffer Seafood” which is the exact search.

So how can we create the search result page from the parameter without the exact search function?

Best Regards,

Amornthep C.

How to compute within a Multi tape turing machine [a binary substraction between 2 numbers and result on 3rd tape]?

I’m trying to compute a Multi-tape turing machine (of 3 tapes) that follows this statement.

“A binary subtraction operation between the first and second tape printing the result on the third tape”

I’ve been trying to do it in JFlap but I reached a halt point being pretty confused in this topic overall.

Any help regarding this MTTM would be really appreciated.

Does Cook and Ruzzo’s result also hold for logspace-uniform AC0?

In Cook’s famous paper on $ \mathsf{NC}$ , he cites the following result:

PROPOSITION 4.7 (Cook and Ruzzo, 1983). $ \mathsf{AC}^k$ consists of those problems solvable by uniform unbounded fan-in circuit families in $ O(\log^k n)$ depth and $ n^{O(1)}$ size.

where $ \mathsf{AC}^k$ here is defined for $ k \ge 1$ as the class of problems solvable by an ATM (with direct access) in $ O(\log n)$ space and $ O(\log^k n)$ alternation depth. (Of course, the definition of $ \mathsf{AC}^k$ usually goes the other way around, but given the equivalence it is all just a matter of presentation.)

Note the above is the logspace-uniform version of $ \mathsf{AC}$ . It was later acknowledged that for $ \mathsf{AC}^0$ the more restrictive dlogtime-uniformity is preferable. There is also an interesting result regarding the (in)equality of dlogtime- and logspace-uniformity of $ \mathsf{AC}^0$ . We also know that dlogtime-uniform $ \mathsf{AC}^0$ is characterizable as the class of problems solvable by ATMs in $ O(\log n)$ time (instead of space above) and $ O(1)$ alternation depth.

Given that dlogtime- and logspace-uniformity most likely does make a difference for $ \mathsf{AC}^0$ I am interested whether the Cook and Ruzzo result can be extended to the case of $ k = 0$ and logspace-uniform $ \mathsf{AC}^0$ . Unfortunately, in Cook’s paper, “Cook and Ruzzo, 1983” is only listed as “unpublished theorem,” so I was unable to check whether the proof also works for $ k=0$ (and Cook and Ruzzo had simply neglected it for some reason).

What balance pitfalls result from this house rule modifying the optional Flanking rule?

As much as I enjoy 5e, one design issue sticks in my craw: combat is too static. Once initiative is rolled, everyone tends to move to a single position and stand there whacking enemies until someone dies.1 Granted, the DM can deliberately engineer an encounter to encourage moving around, e.g., by including hazardous terrain features, forced movement, area effects, etc. But if every encounter is so engineered, at some point it begins to feel contrived. (“Whaddya know, yet another combat against monsters with push abilities set amid pools of burning lava. Darn our luck!”) Besides, that’s a lot of extra thought and work for the DM to put in. I like to make a DM’s life easier… especially if it’s mine.

Accordingly, the DMG‘s optional Flanking rule (p. 251), which grants advantage to attackers on opposite sides of an enemy, has an intuitive appeal. It at least appears to incent creatures to move around in search of better tactical positioning. And it requires little or no planning; it’s entirely situational.

Yet most of the commentary I’ve heard about the rule has been negative. The main criticism seems to be that Flanking trivilizes the gaining of advantage, because maneuvering around an enemy is too easy and comes with no trade-offs. Whereas in past editions of D&D, moving while adjacent to an enemy invited danger (namely opportunity attacks), there is no such danger in 5e. As a result, the Flanking rule as currently written seldom requires creatures to make meaningful tactical choices about whether moving around an enemy in order to flank is worthwhile. Because advantage is powerful and the downsides of moving are insignificant, the answer to “is moving worthwhile?” is nearly always “yes” — and so most combatants end up having advantage from flanking most of the time. That, in turn, devalues other mechanics that would grant advantage (the barbarian’s Reckless Attack, spells like guiding bolt and faerie fire, etc.).

Another criticism, as this question suggests, is that rather than encouraging dynamic combat with more movement, etc., Flanking still produces static combat — just combat in “conga line” formations of alternating PCs and monsters, all flanking each other. The accepted answer to that question supposes the straight-line problem can be solved by modifying the Flanking rule such that a creature who is flanked cannot flank another creature. I’m not sure that’s true, but in any event it doesn’t really address the main criticism that flanking, and the movement required to achieve it, is too easy.

Instead, I’m considering a house rule modifying Flanking such that a creature can’t flank an enemy if there is any other enemy within 5 feet of the creature. The idea would be to encourage combatants to risk stepping away from enemies — and drawing opportunity attacks — in order to gain advantage. That would tend to make flanking harder to achieve in the typical chaotic scrum of combat where enemies are all about, and so other options for gaining advantage remain relatively valuable. And not coincidentally, it would also tend to break up straight-line combat formations.

What are the balance implications of such a house rule? Is there some class or monster ability that would be totally overpowered or broken by it?


1 For what it’s worth, I apparently am not the only person for whom static combat is a concern.

2 Note this somewhat-similar Q&A from 4e.

“where ” give me two result . why? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • How can I uninstall software? 10 answers

I installed a new version of exiftool on my OS when the old version was 9.8 and the new one is 11.6. I install it by this tutorial (notice that I do not uninstall the old version before installing new one same Microsoft Windows OS!). but now when I run where exiftool give me two below directory:

/usr/local/bin/exiftool /usr/bin/exiftool 

When I use /usr/local/bin/exiftool -j <image> (that is command for generate image data as Json) all is going well but during use /usr/bin/exiftool -j <image> the error appear:

Not enough arguments for Image::ExifTool::CopyFileAttrs at /usr/bin/exiftool line 2664, near "$  outfile)" Execution of /usr/bin/exiftool aborted due to compilation errors. 

The problem is I have a project that using exiftool without absolute path like exiftool -j <image> and now it’s crashing. how I can remove all of them and reinstall exiftool again so all program can call exiftool correct ?thank you.

How to decide if two conjunctive queries cannot have any result in common

Consider the following queries:

Q1: age > 18 & age < 24 & gender = ‘male’

Q2: age > 25 & gender = ‘male’ & major = ‘CS’

Q3: age = 20 & major = ‘CS’

Clearly, given any database instance $ D$ , we can decide $ Q1(D) \cap Q2(D) = \emptyset$ and $ Q2(D) \cap Q3(D) = \emptyset$ . However, we cannot decide about the result of $ Q1(D) \cap Q3(D)$ .

I’m aware of query containment, in where the result of one query always is a subset of the results of another query. Also, I’m aware of query equivalence, in where the results of two queries should be exactly the same given any database instance.

However, I’m looking for an algorithm/terminology for my case, where before evaluating the two queries, I can decide the intersection of their results are always empty. Indeed, due to conflicting selection conditions, they cannot have any common result.