When sharing the Eyes of Night darkvision, does a creature needs to always be 10 feet close to the cleric to be granted the benefits?

The Eyes of Night feature from the Twilight Domain Cleric, introduced in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything pg. 34, grants darkvision to the cleric:

You can see through the deepest gloom. You have darkvision out to a range of 300 feet.

It also allows the cleric to share this darkvision with willing creatures:

As an action, you can magically share the darkvision of this feature with willing creatures you can see within 10 feet of you, up to a number of creatures equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of one creature). The shared darkvision lasts for 1 hour. […]

It’s clear that the creature needs to be within 10 feet of the cleric for him to use an action to share the darkvision. But once shared, does that creature needs to be within 10 feet of the cleric to be granted the benefits of the darkvision from Eyes of Night? Since the sharing has a duration 1 hour I’m wondering what if a creature that wandered far away from the cleric would still be granted this benefit.

So Sharing Vision with Eyes of the Runekeeper does it work?

So I basically in a game sharing vision via my familiar and I was assuming that the Eyes of the rune keeper allows the ability to Read all writing. If I’m sharing sense with my familiar am I still allowed to read all writing as the text pertains that it allows me to read and doesn’t specify familiar senses, Or I just can’t read via my familiar and only by my own eyes.

How can I do 301 instead of 302 redirects when there are multiple domains sharing the same site hosted in IIS?

I have several domains sharing the same site and use a default.asp as the default file where I test the SERVER_NAME variable and use Response.Redirect to redirect to the home page of the site requested.

The problem is that this type of redirect causes 302 status code. Even when having a rewrite section in my web.config where I created one redirect rule for each site with redirectType="Permanent", the status code 302 is returned.

That is bad for ranking pages in Google’s index. Does somebody know a way to solve that problem and return 301 status code?

Why would “dice sharing” be an issue at a game? [closed]

Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, page 141 says the following (emphasis mine):

Common in-game limits include – but are not limited to – […]
Common out-of-game limits include unwanted physical contact, dice-sharing, dice-throwing, shouting, vulgarity, […].

All of these make sense to me, except for dice sharing. Why would people find dice sharing offensive? What about it would be offensive? Would it be forcing a player to use your dice, or forcing a player to share their dice? Or would it just be someone would be offended by you sharing your dice with someone?

USB flash drives sharing on computer network [closed]



Can we share USB flash drives on a computer network?

Example : USB flash drives connected to a local Windows/Mac/Linux os machine is part of the computer network. The contents of the USB flash drives to be shared with other computers.

Can this be implemented?

Sharing a language vs. sharing a vocabulary vis a vis the Command spell

The Command spell reads:

You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn’t understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it.

Emphasis mine, it mentions the target needs to understand the language not necessarily the words you use. If a caster has a much larger vocabulary than the target, does the magic aid in the comprehension and compulsion, or does the lack of comprehension block the compulsion?

Example: the cleric in question is fighting a bandit on the road through the woods and wants to make them drop their weapon and kneel on the ground and be busy down there for a few seconds could they say, “Defoliate!” and cause them to start ripping the grass out of the ground? Assuming the bandit doesn’t know the word, of course.

How does multiple creatures sharing a turn interact with once-per-turn abilities?

This question was brought to mind upon reading one of the bullet points in this answer (regarding a Marilith’s ability to take a reaction every turn), which reads:

  • This limits you to one attack per group for certain implementations of group initiative, as well as for groups of summoned monsters that share a turn

This is noticeable in many of the "Conjure …" spells which share this common line (emphasis mine):

The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which has its own turns.

The language reads "a group…has its own turns", not "the summoned creatures…have their own turns", which lends to the idea that the summoned creatures are not just sharing an initiative, but actually sharing the turn. This Q&A brings up other cases as well, so it does not seem out of the ordinary that multiple creatures could share a turn. My question is: how does that interact with once-per-turn abilities such as the Marilith in the question referenced above, the Cavalier Fighter’s Vigilant Defender, or monsters’ legendary actions.

How to devise cryptographic system with sharing ability

I am writing a C#.net application. For my application the data of the users should be encrypted in the database. The users should also be able to share data with other users. To that end I want to you RSA encryption.

My intended implementation is as follows: The public key of the user is stored in the database. Data that is to be shared with another user is encrypted with that users public key and stored in the database. Now, here are two problems I am facing with this approach:

1.) I want the public/private key pair to be derived from the user password so as to not have it stored anywhere unsafely on disk. Whenever the user logs into the application, the private key is derived and user data can be de-/encrypted. My question is, how can I derive an RSA key pair from the password?

2.) If the user resets their password, no previously encrypted data can be decrypted anymore, as that would require the user’s old password in order to derive the private key. As far as I know, one solution to this problem is to encrypt/decrypt using a randomly generated data encryption key that doesn’t ever change, and to then encrypt that key using a password based key. But then how can a user share encrypted data with other users? For that the user would have to also share their password based key in order to grant access to the public data encryption key, which obviously is against the whole point of encryption.

So, how do I go about reconciling and solving both of these issues?

Confusion about “false sharing”

This is a homework problem that I have

  In a multicore system, you are running the code on the right on each core, and it suffers from false    sharing. You can assume t_id is set to a unique thread identifier (e.g. 0-15). How could you change    the code to reduce false sharing?    for (int i=0; i<N; i++)   totals[t_id] += a[i]; 

What I’m having trouble with is seeing where the false sharing is occurring. It says state t_id is set to a unique thread identifier, so doesn’t that mean there’s only 1 thread that’s accessing the data here?

We only briefly went over false sharing, but from what I’ve learned false sharing occurs when a cache miss occurs because the data was invalidated previously due to an “irrelevant” data being written/read from a different cache. But if the thread is the same, then doesn’t that mean it’s the same cache being used to write/read? How would false sharing occur here?