Why do servers cache Web pages even though they know the Web page will be changed in the future?

For performance, some Web pages get cached. This is because the server can then speed up page load time:

Without a cached copy  +--SERVER--+                                                   +--CLIENT--+ | [file] --> load file from disk --> read file --> sends over --> loaded  | +----------+                                                   +----------+  With a cached copy +--SERVER--+                                             +--CLIENT--+ | [file] --> read file from cache --> sends over network --> loaded | +----------+                                             +----------+ 

This speeds up the operation.

However, when a file changes, the cache does not change. Even though the cache can speed up load time by a lot, the file is still old. The Web site has to regenerate the cache again.

So why do Web servers cache pages even though the file will have to change in the future?

Is there a spell or item that can detect Lycanthropes while they are in their human form?

Since purchasing the Troll Skull Tavern in Waterdeep, Ichabod the Inscrutable has run afoul of the Shard Shunner wererat gang. He believes their leader to be none other than the Fellowship of Innkeeper’s guildmaster, Mister Fairkettle.

Obviously, Ichabod can’t just run to the Watch, some of them are likely on Fairkettle’s payroll! What magical means are available to him that would help him identify and prove who the wererats are?

Ichabod has access to any published, core (non-UA) item or spell that is not an artifact or 9th level.

Is there a spell or item that can detect Lycanthropes while they are in their human form?


This question is purely hypothetical. Any resemblance to characters, living or dead, actual or fictional, is purely coincidental and is in no way intended to be a spoiler.

Does a Swarmkeeper lose their swarm if they die?

In Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, the Swarmkeeper Ranger’s "Gathered Swarm" feature states the following (emphasis added):

A swarm of intangible nature spirits has bonded itself to you and can assist you in battle. Until you die, the swarm remains in your space […].

In a recent encounter, my Swarmkeeper just died but was resurrected by the party’s Cleric. Because they’ve died, does this mean that the swarm is lost to them forever?

Can a mage cast spells that they don’t have as a rote/praxis?

From what I can read in the rulebook, there are three main ways to cast a spell:

  • Improvised spells, which always have a set of general effects.
  • Rotes, which treat the highest arcanum as 5 dots for the purposes of Reach, cost no mana and allow the caster to use mudras as yantras.
  • Praxes, which also cost no mana and crit success on 3 successes.

Did I miss a part of the book that describes how to cast existing spells outside these 3 ways? If so, please point me to the right section of the book.

As a DM, is telling your players what they conclude a bad practice?

I, a new DM who has run around 10-15 game session so far, am in the process of watching Critical Role Campaign 2 (currently at Episode 23). We all know Matt Mercer and his famous quotes like "You can certainly try" and "How do you wanna do this?". While watching, another phrase he says quite often has come to my attention "You get the sense that…". This has started to annoy me, as it seems that he says this every time, he wants the players to come to a certain conclusion, by telling them what conclusions their characters come to. Any time he does that, I instinctively tell myself: "I never want to do that when I DM", because to me this seems to be breaking one of the most important guidelines in story telling "show, don’t tell!".

As an example in Episode 23 the group was camping outside with Yasha being one of the people who took watch. After the night passed he told them something along the lines of "you get the sense, that anything that was out there during the night didn’t want to come close, because of how scary Yasha looks". This bothers me because, as far as I noticed, the characters had no way of knowing that information. He just told them, that there characters felt that way, which to me seems to be on the same level of telling them that information out of character aka metagaming.

If I think about it more closely, I guess I can see where he is coming from. Not in this example, but usually it appears he is trying to speed up the process of the characters finding out a certain piece of information, as to not drag a scene on for too long, steering them into the right direction. This seems to come at a cost of realism/immersion to me though.

I want to clarify, that I don’t want to diminish Matt Mercer personally or as a DM in a way. He has done so much good for the community and I am learning so much about DMing while watching his Campaign.

But the question I am asking myself is: Would this behavior generally be classified as a bad practice, a DM should avoid doing?

Is MySQL more scalable than PostgreSQL due to the difference in how they handle connections?

I’m trying to decide if either MySQL or PostgreSQL would be more suitable for an application that will get hit by potentially thousands of simultaneous requests at a time.

During research, one fact that stands out is that PostgreSQL forks a new process for each connection, whereas MySQL creates a new thread to handle each connection.

  • Does this mean that MySQL is more efficient than PostgreSQL at handling many concurrent connections?

  • How much of an impact does this difference have on how well both systems scale? Is it something that I should worry about to begin with?