If undead exist, why do cemeteries exist & cremation not a standard?

I have less fingers than the nr of cemeteries I cleared in campaigns of various scenarios and game mechanics. I find time and time again cemeteries crawling with undead. Either graves or crypts.

I understand the exotic/horror nature of a cemetery but if it happens once, twice, a million times, surely some peasants can get the hint and burn their dead?

A friend said that improper burial through fire angers the god who wants xyz ritual, that some undead are ghosts & other incorporeal undead BECAUSE they can’t find their body so they throw a major ragequit.

Surely there must be a better reason.

How to improve Oracle Standard Edition’s performance for testing?

There’s a great post on StackOverflow about improving Postgres performance for testing.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9407442/optimise-postgresql-for-fast-testing/9407940#9407940

However, there aren’t any resources on doing the same for OracleDB. I don’t have a license for Enterprise Edition, that has features like ‘In-Memory’ columnar storage that would almost definitely improve performance.

https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/inmem/intro-to-in-memory-column-store.html

I’m really limited in what I can try in Standard Edition. It’s running in a Docker container in a CI pipeline. I’ve tried putting the tablespace on a RAM disk, but that doesn’t improve performance at all. I’ve tried fiddling with FILESYSTEMIO_OPTION, but no performance change.

Would anyone know of some more obvious things I can do in OracleDB in a CI environment?

SQL Server Transactional Replication between SQL server 2019 Standard and SQL server 2016 Web Edition

We have SQL Server 2016 Web Edition on production currently. Since this edition supports replication as Subscriber only, I set up a new server with SQL Server 2019 Standard edition. I want to configure SQL Server 2019 as Publisher and SQL Server 2016 as subscriber. To initialize data for Publisher database on SQL server 2019, I created a backup on SQL Server 2016 and restored it on SQL Server 2019. Since our database is very large, I tried to initialize replication from a backup. So I did reverse backup-restore again by creating a backup of Publisher on SQL Server 2019 and restoring it on Subscriber on SQL Server 2016. But this did not work because [SQL Server 2019 backups cannot be restored by any earlier version of SQL Server] (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/databases/copy-databases-with-backup-and-restore?view=sql-server-ver15). Could you please tell me what is the best method for initializing the replication in this case? Thank you very much for reading my question!

What is the standard practice for animating motion — move character or not move character?

I’ve downloaded a bunch of (free) 3d warriors with animations. I’ve noticed for about 25% of them, the ‘run’ animation physically moves the character forward in the z direction. For the other 75%, the animation just loops with the characters feet moving etc., but does so in place, without changing the character’s physical location.

I could fix this by:
1.) Manually updating the transform in code for this 75%, to physically move the character
2.) Alter the animation by re-recording it, with a positive z value at the end (when I did this it caused the character to shift really far away the rest of the units, probably something to do with local space vs world space I haven’t figured out yet).

But before I go too far down this rabbit hole, I wonder if there is any kind of standard? In the general case, are ‘run’ / ‘walk’ animations supposed to move the character themselves, or is it up to the coder to manually update the transform while the legs move and arms swing in place? Is one approach objectively better than the other, or maybe it depends on the use case? If so, what are the drawbacks of each? I know nothing about animation, so I don’t want to break convention (if there is one).

Are all other Spell-Like Abilities standard actions?

I’ve seen a lot of questions regarding SLA but regarding actions and casting time – specifically, do you consider "casting time" as the SLA "otherwise noted" part?

A Witch Tree is casting Dominate Person as a: 1 round action or Standard action?

It seems at one point someone added unless otherwise noted in the spell or ability, but is that official?

Are abilities that “Treat the results as a bull rush attempt” modified by feats and abilities that modify your standard Bull Rush?

Specifically I’m looking at the power Wind Blast from the Wind subdomain of the Air domain. The ability reads as follows:

Wind Blast (Su): As a standard action, you can unleash a blast of air in a 30-foot line. Make a combat maneuver check against each creature in the line, using your caster level as your base attack bonus and your Wisdom modifier in place of your Strength modifier. Treat the results as a bull rush attempt. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

With this and similar abilities, do any bonuses or effects from class abilities, feats, or traits such as Greater Bull Rush apply to the roll or result?

Is there a standard way to handle spells that have *willing creatures* as targets but no ruling for unwilling ones?

Some spells allow to target willing creatures and specify what unwilling ones should do (usually, a saving throw) to avoid the magical effect (see Scatter, for example).

Other spells use wording such as "up to $ X$ willing creatures", "You touch a willing creature" and similar, but they do not have any rules for not willing ones.

Is there any standard/common way to handle spells belonging to the latter case? Or does the magical effect simply take place?


Most of these spell are buffs, hence usually the targets are willing creatures. Down below I report a couple of example situations in which a creature may want to avoid the spell’s effect.

Catnap

You make a calming gesture, and up to three willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range fall unconscious for the spell’s duration. The spell ends on a target early if it takes damage or someone uses an action to shake or slap it awake. […]

The party is fighting a group of 3 ogres and they are heavily injured, they want to run away from combat: the bard casts Catnap and the ogres fall unconscious even they are not willing to do so.

Water Walk

This spell grants the ability to move across any liquid surface–such as water, acid, mud, snow, quicksand, or lava […]. Up to ten willing creatures you can see within range gain this ability for the duration.

If you target a creature submerged in a liquid, the spell carries the target to the surface of the liquid at a rate of 60 feet per round.

A group of enemies cast Water Breathing for fleeing under water from the party. The wizard casts Water Walk to force them to emerge from the water: now they are easy targets for the ranger.

Should I write custom allocators for STL containers to interface with my memory pool, or just overwrite the standard new and delete

I want to write a custom memory allocator for learning. I’m tempted to have a master allocator that requests n bytes of ram from the heap (via new). This would be followed by several allocator… Adaptors? Each would interface with the master, requesting a block of memory to manage, these would be stack, linear, pool, slab allocators etc.

The problem I have is whether I should write custom allocator_traits to interface with these for the various STL containers; or if I should just ignore the adaptor idea and simply overload new and delete to use a custom pool allocator.

What I’m interested in understanding is what tangible benefit I would gain from having separate allocators for STL containers? It seems like the default std::allocator calls new and delete as needed so if I overload those to instead request from my big custom memory pool, I’d get all the benefit without the kruft of custom std::allocator code.

Or is this a matter where certain types of allocator models, like using a stack allocator for a std::dqueue would work better than the default allocator? And if so, wouldn’t the normal stl implementation already specialise?