GLES3 – GL_INVALID_OPERATION: Operation illegal in current state (Unity Android native)

I use Unity(editor 2020.1.8f1). My application use android native .so lib that use GLES3. In order to use it first of all I have done these steps :

first: go to Project Settings >>> Player >>> Other Settings.  second: find "Auto Graphic API" and uncheck it.  third: Now you can see a new panel just below the "Auto Graphic API". It's a list of "Graphics APIs". Remove all graphics APIs and just add "OpenGLES3". 

Then in android CMakeList.txt file I marked that I use GLES3

... target_link_libraries(         libcocodec         GLESv3               <----------------  THIS LINE         decoder_engine_lib         $  {log-lib} ) ... 

And there is a usage :

void RenderAPI_OpenGLCoreES::EndModifyTexture(         void* textureHandle,         int textureWidth,         int textureHeight,         int rowPitch,         void* dataPtr,         bool destroy) {     GLuint gltex = (GLuint)(size_t)(textureHandle);     // Update texture data, and free the memory buffer     glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, gltex);          GLenum format = GL_RG;      glTexSubImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, 0, 0, textureWidth, textureHeight, format, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, dataPtr);     if (destroy)         delete[](unsigned char*)dataPtr; } 

and error message I get is –

2020-11-08 10:51:46.966 1512-1930/com.co.unityandroidplayer E/Unity: OPENGL NATIVE PLUG-IN ERROR: GL_INVALID_OPERATION: Operation illegal in current state      (Filename: ./Runtime/GfxDevice/opengles/GfxDeviceGLES.cpp Line: 358) 

I assume that something wrong with usage of GLenum format = GL_RG;, because (just for test) – if I use GLenum format = GL_ALPHA; I don’t get any errors (as well as expected result). Looks like gles3 doesn’t know what is GL_RG format.

What am I doing wrong?

Can a Pact of the Chain Warlock summon their familiar in an invisible state?

As a Pact of the Chain Warlock, you:

…learn the find familiar spell and can cast it as a ritual. The spell doesn’t count against your number of spells known.

When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

The imp, quasit, and sprite all have the power to turn invisible.

Is it possible that when the Warlock calls forth their familiar, that the familiar starts in an invisible state? Or would they have to appear visible, and then immediately take an Action to turn invisible?

SQL Database stuck In Recovery state after restart

SQL Server was restarted by mistake, when it came online, database came back in "In Recovery" mode.

Check from error it says "Recovery of database ‘DB1’ (5) is 8% complete (approximately 27146 seconds remain). Phase 2 of 3. This is an informational message only. No user action is required.

It says it will 8 hours to bring this 2tb database online.

Any quick way to fix this, as we didnt had anything open in LOG files, so even if they r ignored, its no impact.

We want to bring this database ONLINE quickly

Steady state solution (1D) of nonlinear dispersal equation

Now I’m interested in the equation $ $ \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\Bigl(\text{sgn}(x) u \Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \Bigl[ u^2 \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} \Bigr] =0$ $ with boundary conditions $ u(-5)=u(5)=0$

Since $ \text{sgn}(x)$ is not differentiable at $ x=0$ , I expectd ND solve to have some problems. I tried

sol = NDSolveValue[{   0 == D[Sign[x]*u[x],x] + D[u[x]^2 D[u[x], x], x],    u[-6] == 0, u[6] == 0}   , u, {x, -7, 7}] 

but I can’t even plot it and I think that I’m writing it in the wrong way. Could someone confirm I wrote the right snippet and show the plot I should obtain?

  • I asked a related question three days ago, where the equation was the PDE $ \partial_t u = \partial_x (\text{sign}(x) u) + \partial_x (u^2\partial_x u)$ . The one I have above it’s the steady state solution, and I want to compute it directly, instead of integrating in time.

How important is initial state for local search optimisation?

I have been enjoying Pascal van Hentenryck’s Discrete Optimisation course and we’re in Week 4 on the wonders of Local Search algorithms for combinatorial optimisation.

I’m wondering how important the initial configuration is to the quality of solution achievable in a fixed time or, somewhat equivalently, how quickly a solution of a given quality can be reached.

So if I have a good heuristic or intuition for how to arrange things in the first place, is it helpful to devote some processing time to setting that up or is it all dominated by the effect of the local search process?

For example, in the Cartesian Travelling Salesman Problem (where we’re working in a 2D plane and the cost of a journy is simply the straight-line distance) I might "feel" that a good route could roughly follow a clockwise sweep from the centre of the space. So I could use this to set my initial tour (i.e. order the nodes by their angle from the mean of all points). This intuition might be rubbish for certain instances and great for others, I was hoping to see a study where (let’s say random TSP) instances had been solved by following a heuristic first state as opposed to a completely random (but legal) first state.

What is the current state of the art vulnerability scanner? [closed]

I want to use my sparetime to fiddle around with Metasploitable 2 a little so I did a fresh installation of a Kali VM.

What confuses me is that there seems to be no vulnerability scanner on board anymore? If I remember correctly a few years ago Kali where shipped with OpenVas, NeXpose and Nessus.

I did a quick research in what tool is the current state of the art but only found very old and outdated informations. As far as I see Nexpose is now commercial whitout a community version?

What is the current state of the art vulnerability scanner and why isnt it shipped in Kali anymore?

CLRS 22.3-1, How Come Solutions Online State There Can’t Be Edges From WHITE to GRAY nodes “at any point… during search”?

The exercise (from the book Introduction To Algorithms) states

Make a 3-by-3 chart with row and column labels WHITE, GRAY,and BLACK. In each cell (i, j) indicate whether, at any point during a depth-first search of a di- rected graph, there can be an edge from a vertex of color i to a vertex of color j . For each possible edge, indicate what edge types it can be. Make a second such chart for depth-first search of an undirected graph.

The colors WHITE, GRAY, BLACK correspond to Undiscovered, discovered but not finished, and finished. The following solution is what multiple sites & universities have posted(such as: walkccc, Rutgers University):

 |       | WHITE         | GRAY                | BLACK                | |-------|---------------|---------------------|----------------------| | WHITE | All kinds     | Cross, Back         | Cross                | | GRAY  | Tree, Forward | Tree, Forward, Back | Tree, Forward, Cross | | BLACK | -             | Back                | All kinds            | 

I will draw a minimal counter example as it helps understand my conflict:

counter-example

  • Start at node 0: 0 is GRAY
  • PAUSE
  • At this point, 3 is still white and has an edge to 0
  • Resume and keep going, eventually the edge from 3 to 0 will be discovered as a tree edge

This contradicts the solutions saying you can only have Cross/Back edges going form WHITE->GRAY. This example can be easily modified to contradict many of the elements in the table. I think the solutions are doing one of the following:

  • Assuming that the graph is a tree and that we start at its root. (Wrong as DFS doesn’t need a tree graph and any node can be started from).
  • More likely (Just thought of this), interpreting the question of "can there be an edge" as "can there be an edge that we have discovered". In which case, the solutions work, as although the edge from 3->0 was a WHITE->GRAY edge at one point, we hadn’t discovered it yet.

Is it possible to construct a finite state automata for a decimal adder?

Suppose the strings are of the form x#y#z , where x,y,z are strings formed from the alphabet $ \Sigma=(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)$ . The language is accepted if x+y=z is satisfied, for example : 56#65#121 is accepted, but 2#97#104 is not. Is it possible to find a finite automata for such a language ? I am aware of binary addition but I cannot fathom how decimal addition could be carried out using a DFA .

How hard would it be to state P vs. NP in a proof assistant?

GJ Woeginger lists 116 invalid proofs of P vs. NP problem. Scott Aaronson published "Eight Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof Is Wrong" to reduce hype each time someone attempts to settle P vs. P. Some researchers even refuse to proof-read papers settling the "P versus NP" question.

I have 3 related questions:

  1. Why are people not using proof assistants that could verify whether a proof of P vs. NP is correct?
  2. How hard or how much effort would it be to state P vs. NP in a proof assistant in the first place?
  3. Is there currently any software that would be at least in principle capable of verifying a P vs. NP proof?