What happens with lethargy when Haste is cast again on a creature before first cast runs out?

Haste states

When the spell ends, the target can’t move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it.

However, let’s say Character A cast Haste on Character B. In the 10th round (final round of haste if concentration not broken), Character B casts Haste on himself.

What happens during the next round?

  1. Do they lose a round of the “new” haste while they are lethargic and lose movement and actions?
  2. Does the new haste override the lethargy until it ends?
  3. Is it some combination? Retain AC/Dex modifications but lose actions/movement?
  4. None of the above?

Stored procedure runs fine when executed manually but fails in scheduled job

I have a stored procedure that runs fine when executed manually but fails in scheduled job. The error I receive is: Executed as user: \USER-a. Login failed for user ‘\USER-a’. [SQLSTATE 28000] (Error 18456). The step failed.

My other stored procedures runs fine when scheduled. The only stored procedures that fails are the ones that are written in this form.

SET @QUERY = ‘SELECT * from abc’

EXEC(@QUERY)

How do you convert an NP problem which runs in O(f(x)) time in a SAT instance with O(f(x)*log(f(x))) variables in O(f(x)*log(f(x)))

I looked at the Cook’s theorem at Wikipedia which presents a way to convert any NP problem to SAT but it seems to require O(f(x)^3) variables. Is it possible to remove some of the checks in the conversion so to make it O(f(x)*log(f(x))) in variables and time?

Given an algorithm, decide whether it runs in polynomial time?

This problem is not decidable (reducible to halting problem) but is semi-decidable and therefor verifiable (as those two definitions are equivalent: How to prove semi-decidable = verifiable?).

However, is this problem poly-time verifiable? A decision problem 𝑄 is in poly time verifiable iff

there is an algorithm 𝑉 called verifier such that V runs in $ O(x^{c})$ for some constant c for all inputs π‘₯,

if 𝑄(π‘₯)=π‘ŒπΈπ‘† then there is a string 𝑦 such that 𝑉(π‘₯,𝑦)=π‘ŒπΈπ‘†, if 𝑄(π‘₯)=𝑁𝑂 then for all strings 𝑦, 𝑉(π‘₯,𝑦)=𝑁𝑂.

Example: for an enumeration of P (such as this): How does an enumerator for machines for languages work? for each string $ p$ in the enumeration, does there exist some other string (certificate) $ c$ that allows you to verify $ p$ is a member of the enumeration in poly time?

Why ParallelTable warns where Table runs quietly?

I have a code involving ParametricNDSolveValue and FindRoot to find a trajectory [actually, trajectory of a line that everywhere is normal to magnetic field] passing through a given point {rn,zn} on the rz plane. First I call for ParametricNDSolveValue to find trajectory zs[z0] that starts from the point {0,z0} on the axis z:

dzdr$  [r_, z_] /; r < 1/10^5 = (  r (-9 Sin[2 z] + 4 Sin[4 z]))/(-9 + 9 Cos[2 z] - 2 Cos[4 z]);  dzdr$  [r_, z_] /;    r >= 1/10^5 = (2 r (9 BesselI[1, 2 r] Sin[2 z] -        2 BesselI[1, 4 r] Sin[4 z]))/(18 r + 2 r^3 -      9 r BesselI[0, 2 r] Cos[2 z] - 9 BesselI[1, 2 r] Cos[2 z] -      9 r BesselI[2, 2 r] Cos[2 z] + 2 r BesselI[0, 4 r] Cos[4 z] +      BesselI[1, 4 r] Cos[4 z] + 2 r BesselI[2, 4 r] Cos[4 z]);  pfun = ParametricNDSolveValue[{D[z[r], r] == dzdr$  [r, z[r]],     z[0] == z0}, z, {r, 0, 1.5}, {{z0, -(\[Pi]/2), \[Pi]/2}}]  zs[{r_?NumericQ, z0_?NumericQ}] := pfun[z0][r] 

At the second step I define function getZ0[{rn,zn}] that calls for FindRoot to find starting point z0 for the trajectory that passes through a given point {rn,zn}:

getZ0[{rn_?NumericQ, zn_?NumericQ}, z0Start_?NumericQ] := Module[   {sol}   , sol =     FindRoot[zs[{rn, z0}] - zn, {z0, z0Start, -(\[Pi]/2), \[Pi]/2}];   sol[[1, 2]]   ] getZ0[{rn_?NumericQ, zn_?NumericQ}] := getZ0[{rn, zn}, zn] 

Finally, I want to evaluate getZ0 on a rectangular grid using Table:

Table[{{rn, zn}, getZ0[{rn, zn}]}, {zn, -(\[Pi]/2), \[Pi]/2,    1/2 \[Pi]/2}, {rn, 0, 1, 0.5}] 

This works fine. However substuting Table with ParallelTable results in sequence of Warnings of the types: FindRoot::lstol, ParametricNDSolveValue::ndsz, InterpolatingFunction::dmval. However both routines seemed to give same results.

To say truth, the differential equation which is solved by ParametricNDSolveValue is singular in two poins (where magnetic field is zero). But I wonder why there are no warnings when I use Table rather than ParallelTable?

How to manage a party that runs better in smaller groups?

I’ve been running a pathfinder campaign for close to 4 years now. In my mind it has been quite successful and my players are generally active and engaged in the story. However, over the course of the campaign I have noticed a strange trend that I’m not sure what to do about. It is kind of strange but I’ll do my best to explain it.

Group Composition

My player group consists of 4 (sometimes 5) players; my wife, my sister, my best mate and his girlfriend, another friend also plays but is currently overseas for a year. The age range is between 25-32 and the group all get on well. I love this group and want to see this campaign through to the end. Therefore splitting the group is an absolute last resort.

Campaign Details

I run a large scale open world campaign, with lots of sandbox play and opportunities for the players to explore. There are plots and threats throughout the world but where they go and how they deal with them is entirely up to the players.

Typically the party spend about 50% of it’s time exploring or traveling; 30% in towns, shopping or interacting with NPCs; and 20% in dungeons or on specific quests. I would like to adjust this slightly to reduce the amount of time spent traveling, most of the time is lost to indecision where the party can’t agree on a single course of action. More accurately they like to carefully examine every possible option before deciding, which takes a lot of time to reach a decision.

The Issue

Throughout the campaign there have been a few times when the party was split up, either for a scene or two, or for an entire session where I ran separate sessions for each half of the party. Most recently they encountered a pit trap that left the party separated in a dungeon. I switched back and forth between the parties until they could rejoin and it went quite well. Previously I’ve had two characters enslaved and forced to fight in an arena while the rest of the party worked on the outside to tilt the odds in their favour. These are just two examples from across a long campaign.

The pattern I have noticed is that almost every time I run one of these sessions the feedback I get is something like “That was the best session ever” or “best session in a while, I got everything done that I wanted to”. Basically the players constantly seem to enjoy sessions where they are separated more than ones where they are not.

Some reason I think this may be happening:

  • Faster decision making in smaller groups
  • More focused narrative where they always have a role to play in their scenes
  • Having less options forces them to think more creatively
  • Something to do with how I plan/run these session, though I am unsure what.

My Question

I’ve struggled with how to formulate this as a question so comments are welcome but here is my current question:

How do I best utilise the knowledge that my players enjoy sessions with smaller groups to improve my game?

Things I have considered:

  • Regularly splitting the party – I feel like this is the only solution that can reliably achieve this. But I’m having trouble thinking of ways to split the party often while maintaining a reasonable narrative flow.
  • Request for additional feedback – I’ve already tried this somewhat but haven’t gotten much that is meaningful. I can try for more targeted feedback with specific questions.
  • Changing the way I prepare my sessions – I think this is my preferred solution but I am struggling to identify what I am doing differently between the split and non-split sessions.

Answer types that I am expecting:

  • Advice on how to run for the whole group the way I do for the smaller group
  • Suggestions on what the issue with the larger group may be so that I can fix it
  • Advice on how to regularly split the party in a logical and narratively maintainable way.
  • Something I haven’t thought of (that really the point of this I guess)

TL;DR

My party seem to enjoy sessions where they are split into smaller groups. How can I use this to improve my game overall?

sysbench runs give different result for mysql database performance evaluation

i am trying to evaluate the performance of mysql database cluster , INNODB cluster (group replication) , so i use sysbench , i run multiple test using the lua scripts (read_write.lua / read_only.lua / bulk_insert.lua) , each test is run 100 runs for repetition (to give more accurate value) ,and took the mean of the result for each test with different number of threads, but i have a problem if i rerun the test on same servers with same sysbench variables and same values for mysql cluster configuration i have different result which make me confused , could any one advise of what could the problem please. noting that i am using 3 servers vms (on same datacenter vms ) with same specification for cluster , and one server as router on same vm , sysbench installed on different server also on same vm to not have network issues.

servers specification of cluster:

ram: 8G

cpu: 2cores , x86_64, 2593.906 MHz

sysbench version : 1.0.18-1

mysql version : 8.0.18

noting below is the same values on 3 servers of my.cnf file, for sure with different server id

my.cnf file on the 3 nodes:

sysbench command used for bulk insert

sysbench –mysql-host=router_IP –mysql-port=6446 –db-driver=mysql –mysql-user=root –mysql-password=** –mysql-db=test_cluster –threads=30 –events=100000 –time=60 /usr/share/sysbench/bulk_insert.lua run |cat > innodb.log

sysbench command used for read_only test

sysbench –mysql-host=router_IP –mysql-port=6447 –db-driver=mysql –mysql-user=root –mysql-password=** –mysql-db=test_cluster –tables=5 –table_size=2000000 –threads=30 /usr/share/sysbench/oltp_read_write.lua run |cat > innodb.log

What happens when a Mystic runs out of disciplines to learn?

The most recent version (v3) of the Mystic class from Unearthed Arcana can be found here.

The Order of the Nomad gets 2 additional disciplines at 1st level from the “Bonus Disciplines” feature, meaning that all of the Nomad disciplines are unlocked by level 5.

However, at level 7 and above, the number of disciplines known increases further for all mystics. Normally, I would think that the mystic simply would unlock nothing, but at level 20, the sheet says that all mystics know 8 disciplines, which is more than any one order has.

What do you do if your mystic has learned all the disciplines for an order, but is still able to learn more disciplines?

sharepoint flow condition runs showing False always

I have a sharepoint list with a list with “Leave type” as one of the columns which is a choice field. I have another column as “Days requested” i created a flow that needs approval redirected to another person if Leave type is Annual Leave and it is more than 10 days Combination of IF and AND condition. i discovered it is running as “Inputs expression is False and goes to where false expression should go even if the condition is true. I have tried several times and the problem keeps showing up. thus directing my flow to the email meant for false expression

sharepoint flow condition runs showing False always

I have a sharepoint list with a list with “Leave type” as one of the columns which is a choice field. I have another column as “Days requested” i created a flow that needs approval redirected to another person if Leave type is Annual Leave and it is more than 10 days Combination of IF and AND condition. i discovered it is running as “Inputs expression is False and goes to where false expression should go even if the condition is true. I have tried several times and the problem keeps showing up. thus directing my flow to the email meant for false expression