the users trust their system administrators. However, this trust does not expand naturally across domain boundaries

Why doesn’t that expand across domain boundaries?

For example, many components of a distributed system that reside within a single domain can often be trusted by users that operate within that same domain. In such cases, system administration may have tested and certified applications, and may have taken special measures to ensure that such components cannot be tampered with. In essence, the users trust their system administrators. However, this trust does not expand naturally across domain boundaries.

Boyfriends Ranked From Faithful To Big Fat Cheaters Based On Their Zodiac

1. Cancer
Once a Cancer falls for you, you’ll be in their heart forever. They will want to settle down with you as soon as possible. Get married. Have babies. The whole shebang. They wouldn’t ever dream of cheating on you, because they wouldn’t want to ruin the future that they already picture you having together. They wouldn’t want to destroy their happily ever after.

2. Leo
You might think that a Leo would love to stay single forever,…

Boyfriends Ranked From Faithful To Big Fat Cheaters Based On Their Zodiac

If the same attack that causes a druid to revert from Wild Shape also reduces their maximum HP, what happens?

I am aware of Jeremy Crawford’s ruling that maximum HP reduction applied to a Wild Shape form does not apply to the druid’s true form when Wild Shape reverts. However, this doesn’t answer the question of what happens when the attack that causes the maximum HP reduction is also the attack that causes the druid to revert.

This is certainly a related question to the appropriate order of damage and HP reduction effects, with the added wrinkle of resolving when the druid reverts. Assuming someone can cite the answer to the linked question (which was made more by reductio ad absurdem than a cited source), I can see four likely scenarios:

  1. The wild shape takes damage, reverts, then the full max HP reduction is applied to the druid. (This is, to me, most logical scenario, and results from the order damage-revert-max HP reduction.)

  2. The wild shape takes damage and absorbs as much of the max HP reduction as possible, applying the remaining damage and max HP reduction to the druid. (This is hard to sell, as the max HP reduction is applied at a time when no rule says it should be, but based on Crawford’s tweet above seems to be the rule as intended.)

  3. The wild shape takes damage and max HP reduction is applied, then the form reverts and additional damage is applied to the druid. The druid’s max HP is not affected. (This is the most lenient case, but seems more correct than case 2 if the correct order of application is damage-max HP reduction-revert.)

  4. The druid dies before it reverts, because its wild shape form was reduced to 0 maximum hit points. (This is the harshest case and results from the same order, damage-max HP reduction-revert. This seems more likely again than the previous two, as “The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0,” is not like Disintegrate’s check after the spell’s damage has been dealt.)

When the same attack that causes the druid to revert from Wild Shape also reduces their max HP, what happens?

What’s the safest way to inform a new user of their password on my web site?

Hope this is the right forum for this.

I’m developing a web site where people will have accounts. However, unlike most web sites, user do not register, rather they are invited by the site admins. The site admins will create a new user profile, based on their email address, and then want the site to email them telling them that their profile is ready for use.

However, I’m not sure of the safest way to let people know of their password. In a normal registration, the user enters their password of choice, which is hashed and stored. All that remains is to send them a link to verify their email address.

In our case, they don’t register, so don’t supply a password. Whats the safest way to proceed?

This answer suggests sending them a link to a page where they can see their password, but I’m not sure if that has any benefits over sending them to a page where they can enter their own password. Actually, I think the latter suggestion is better, as if the password has already been set, the web page can inform them that the password has been set, and if this wasn’t them, to contact the admins immediately.

Anyone any suggestions or comments? Thanks

Sortings stocks into quantiles based on their signal

This function sorts stocks into quantiles. To do so I used this function that accepts sig_df (dataframe with the timeseries of stocks signal) and number of quantiles as imput:

qs = ['Q' + str(i) for i in range(1, len(perc)+1)] q_labels= list(itertools.chain.from_iterable( itertools.repeat(x, int(sig_df.shape[1]/q_num)) for x in qs))  rank_labels = ['rank_{}'.format(i) for i in range(sig_df.shape[1])]  bucketed_names = pd.DataFrame(         sig_df.columns.values[np.argsort(-sig_df.values, axis=1)],          columns=[q_labels, rank_labels]         ) 

The second function computes portfolio returns, based on the names bucketed in the function above. It accepts two input a df containing stocks return and the output from the function above. To do so I used:

bucketed_returns = dict() for i in range(1, int(ret_df.shape[1]/bucketed_names.Q1.shape[1])):     Q = []      for row in bucketed_names['Q' + str(i)].itertuples():         temp = ret_df.loc[list(row[:1]) ,list(row[1:])]         Q.append(float(np.dot(temp, weights)))         bucketed_returns['Q' + str(i)] = Q           bucketed_returns = pd.DataFrame(bucketed_returns) 

To optimize this code I thought about multiprocessing – not able to code that – or maybe there could be a better way remaining in pandas/numpy environment.

Smart list on mobile – friends don’t have check marks for their list

If person A is on a smart list on my computer (let’s say the smart list is called Baseball team), it appears to be fine. When using my iphone XR lately, if I click on Person A and then click on edit friend lists I see all the custom smart lists that I have, but none of them (including baseball team) have a check mark beside them. I used to be able to see which list they are included on from my phone, but I can’t do this for any of my friends now. I have to go to a computer to verify which smart list they are on. Please advise how to fix this?

Would this pure class theory about ordinals and their relations raise concerns about its arithmetic soundness?

The following theory is a class theory, where all classes are either classes of ordinals, or relations between classes of ordinals, i.e. classes of Kuratowski ordered pairs of ordinals, or otherwise classes of unordered pairs of ordinals. However, the size of its universe is weakly inaccessible. Ordinals are defined as von Neumann ordinals. The theory is formalized in first order logic with equality and membership.

Extensionality: $ \forall z (z \in x \leftrightarrow z \in y) \to x=y$

Comprehension: if $ \phi$ is a formula in which the symbol $ “x”$ is not free, then all closures of: $ $ \exists x \forall y (y \in x \leftrightarrow \exists z(y \in z) \land \phi)$ $ ; are axioms.

Ordinal pairing: $ \forall \text{ ordinals } \alpha \beta \ \exists x (\{\alpha,\beta\} \in x) $

Define: $ \langle \alpha \beta \rangle = \{\{\alpha\},\{\alpha,\beta\}\}$

Ordinal adjunction:: $ \forall \text { ordinal } \alpha \ \exists x (\alpha \cup \{\alpha\} \in x)$

Relations: $ \forall \text{ ordinals } \alpha \beta \ \exists x (\langle \alpha, \beta \rangle \in x)$

Elements: $ \exists y (x \in y) \to ordinal(x) \lor \exists \text{ ordinals } \alpha \beta \ (x=\langle \alpha,\beta \rangle \lor x=\{\alpha,\beta\})$

Size: $ ORD \text { is weakly inaccessible}$

Where $ ORD$ is the class of all element ordinals.

/Theory definition finished.

Now this theory clearly can define various extended arithmetical operations on element ordinals. Also it proves transfinite induction over element ordinals. In some sense it can be regarded as stretching arithmetic to the infinite world. Of course $ PA$ is interpretable in the finite segment of this theory.

In this posting Nik Weaver in his answer raised the concern of ZFC being arithmetically unsound.

My question: assuming this theory to be consistent, is the concern of it being arithmetically unsound is the same as that with ZFC?

The motive for this question is that it appears to me that the above theory is just a naive extension of numbers to the infinite world, it has no power set axiom nor the alike. One can say that this theory is in some sense purely mathematical in the sense that it’s only about numbers and their relations. Would this raise the same kind of suspicion about arithmetic unsoundness that is raised with ZFC.

My reasoning about that is that generally speaking when one raises the concern of arithmetic unsoundness of some theory, especially if that theory is well received by mathematicians working in set theory and foundations, then there must be some technical or intuitive argument behind that suspicion, otherwise that suspicion would be unfounded. The suspicion must not depend merely on the strength of the theory in question. Otherwise we’d not define any theory stronger than $ PA$ based on such concerns.

From Nik Weaver’s answer it appears to me that his concern is based on ZFC not capturing a clear concept intuitively speaking. Now this theory is based on an intuitive concept that is generally similar to the one behind defining arithmetic for finite sets. It extends it in a very clear intuitive manner, higher ordinals are defined from prior ones in successive manner, and it doesn’t generally feel to be so different from the intuitive underpinnings of arithmetic in the finite world. So the question here is about if this theory still fall a prey to the arguments upon which the concerns about arithmetic unsoundness of ZFC are based.

Correct UX for the scenario when a user forgets the answers to their security questions?

We have an application where a user is required upon registration to set up three security questions and answers

When they login to the application, they must answer one of the questions after entering their username and password. Should they forget their password, 2 of the security questions are presented to be answered along with 2 items of data for them to enter (DOB, NI Number etc etc)

There was recently a scenario whereby a user forgot the answers to their security questions(!) and we had to re-register them from scratch which was quite cumbersome.

What is the correct UX for the scenario when a user forgets the answers to their security questions?

How do dwarves get their food?

The Basic Rules says, “Dwarven kingdoms stretch deep beneath the mountains”, and various other sources give a similar picture, of dwarves living in subterranean communities. Does the 5E source material provide any insight into how they get their food? Do they farm on the surface? Raise crops in caverns? Eat mushrooms?

I’m asking specific to 5E rulebooks and published adventures, although insight from Forgotten Realms lore or past versions could be useful.

Does a Divine Soul Sorcerer’s alignment affect their choice of Divine Magic affinity?

The Divine Soul Sorcerous Origin from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything (page 50) has the class feature Divine Magic at level 1. It allows you to pick a “free” extra spell based on having an “affinity” with the source of your divine power.

In addition, choose an affinity for the source of your divine power: good, evil, law, chaos, or neutrality. You learn an additional spell based on that affinity […]

This choice also affects later class features, such as Otherworldly Wings (the level 14 subclass feature):

The affinity you chose for your Divine Magic feature determines the appearance of the spectral wings: eagle wings for good or law, bat wings for evil or chaos, and dragonfly wings for neutrality.

Does your character’s alignment have any influence over your choice? Can a Chaotic Evil sorcerer choose Law, or can a Lawful Good sorcerer choose Neutrality, etc.?

I’m inclined to assume that they are unrelated given that it doesn’t explicitly say that it is restricted by your alignment, but the fact that it uses the terms good, evil, law, chaos, makes me doubt myself. I can also see this terminology encouraging a DM to say that it does influence your choice.