Thoughts on 2 CTAs in a hero/header section

I’m working on a landing page for a software company. Currently, the company offers one enterprise product. Soon, a second “lite” product will roll out, and I’m wondering about the hero/CTA.

I don’t want to pull attention (read: paying clients) away from the first enterprise product, but I do want to highlight the new lite product.

Best practices say that I should have one CTA attached to the hero that will probably point to a product comparison page (with differences/pricing listed). However, I am toying with the idea of having two CTAs in the hero: one pointing to the product comparison page, and the other immediately launches the sign-up form for the new lite product.

+ I remove a step in the signing up process (users launch the form from the landing page)
+ I maintain an easy way to navigate to the product comparison page.

– I may confuse users with two CTAs
– I may lose potential customers if they are confused by multiple choices in the decision tree. (click or not click vs click a, click b, or not click either)

Thoughts? Success rates? Should I just test each scenario?

I’ve found one article on Smashing Magazine from 2009 discussing two CTAs. But that’s it. Do you have any good examples or strong opinions?

What happens if you use detect thoughts on a person while they are sleeping?

I recently asked this question about how to scan someone’s memories while sleeping. The consensus of the answers was that the best way to do this was to not have them be asleep but instead wake them up, interrogate them, and wipe their memory.

This leads me to the question of what happens if someone casts detect thoughts on a sleeping creature. The spell description states (emphasis mine):

[…] You initially learn the surface thoughts of the creature – what is most on its mind in that moment. As an action, you can either shift your attention to another creature’s thoughts or attempt to probe deeper into the same creature’s mind. If you probe deeper, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. If it fails, you gain Insight into its reasoning (if any), its emotional state, and something that looms large in its mind (such as something it worries over, loves, or hates). […] [T]he target knows that you are probing into its mind[…]

For the “surface thoughts”, I would imagine that this is related to whatever dream the target is having, or no surface thoughts if in deep sleep. If probing deeper, does the sleeping target still get to make the Wisdom saving throw, and do they wake up on either success or failure?

Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?

The “Detect Thoughts” spell has as its material component “a copper piece”. (Yet another in the long list of punny material components.) The rules for material components say,

Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

Does requiring “a copper piece” mean that a “cost is indicated” and so it requires one to actually be holding a coin, rather than just using a spellcasting focus or component pouch? Usually a cost being indicated is worded like “something worth at least 25 gp”, so since this isn’t phrased as “a copper piece worth 1 cp” or even “a one-cp coin” I’m not sure that it means that a “cost is indicated”. It seems to more just be describing a random object associated with the spell like other “normal” spell material components. But then again, I can see a good argument that a coin used for currency would be the most straightforward way of indicating a cost that there is.

Obviously in general adventurers won’t usually have a lot of trouble finding a copper piece during their travels, but I could imagine some circumstances where it would be inconvenient for a spellcaster to need to dig a coin out of their pouch while their spellcasting focus is already in hand.

Thoughts on using curly-brackets-less while loop with a try/catch?

I need to fetch data from an server that isn’t always reliable and unfortunately fixing that is out of my hands. My team determined we would attempt the request up to 3 times.

So I thought of using a try-catch inside the while loop but didn’t like the extra indentation for no good reason and thought to remove the braces from the while loop.

async function doAjax() {   const data = { /* stuff */ }   const retryLimit = 2;   let retryCount = 0;   let found = false;    while (!found && retryCount <= retryLimit) try {     let serverResponse = await $  .get("url", data);     // Do stuff   } catch (err) {     retryCount++;   }    // Do more stuff }

I know my team won’t be against this, but I still got curious if there’s a consensus or some reason in favor/against writing code this way. Thoughts?

If the opposite angles of inscribed quadrilateral will be always supplementary, where did I lose the train of thoughts in this example?

I embedded this diagram to make easier the understanding of my question.

Starting with the quadrilateral ABCD, the central angle ABC that subtends the arch formed by the inscribed angle X, according to the “Inscribed Angle Theorem”, should be exactly twice the value of X. Hence, we could consider the central angle of the arch AEC equal to 360° – 2x.

Changing a bit the perspective, if we consider the angle ADC the inscribed angle that subtends the arch AEC, and so the angle ADC should be equal to half of the angle AEC also according to the “Inscribed Angle Theorem”. Then we get that the value of angle ADC is equal to 180 – x.

Corroborating with this assumption, the double of the inscribed angle of the arch AEC plus the double of the inscribed angle of the arch AC should totalize 360°. And in fact, considering the double of the last found angle, ADC, plus the double of the angle AEC, we reach a total of 360°.

Now my question. The opposite sides of an inscribed quadrilateral should sum up 180°. When I add 180 – x to 2x, this results in 180° + x. Therefore, the value of x should be equal to 0°, which doesn’t make sense.

Where did I lose the train of thought!?

Thanks in advance 🙂

Does the Detect Thoughts spell work against an Intellect Devourer?

The spell Detect Thoughts has the following limitation on potential targets:

You can’t detect a creature with an Intelligence of 3 or lower or one that doesn’t speak any language.

An Intellect Devourer meets the Intelligence requirement, but does an Intellect Devourer speak a language? The languages part of its stat block reads:

Languages Deep Speech understands but can’t speak, Telepathy 60 ft.

This seems cut and dry: it says right there that it knows Deep Speech but cannot speak. But I feel that the situation is not that straightforward.

This situation seems similar to a wizard with their tongue cut out. With no tongue, they cannot speak. They have the mental ability to speak, but they lack the physical ability to do so without some magical or mechanical help.

I feel that an Intellect Devourer is in the same situation. When it uses its Body Thief ability to control a victim, it can speak through their mouth (confirmed by official D&D 5e products). The intellect devourer possesses the mental ability to speak, but its natural form lacks the physical means of doing so without the help of a host body.

So does Detect Thoughts work against an Intellect Devourer?

Does the Encode Thoughts spell remove the target thought from memory, or does it create a copy?

The description of the encode thoughts cantrip says (GGtR, p. 47; emphasis mine):

Putting a finger to your head, you pull a memory, an idea, or a message from your mind and transform it into a tangible string of glowing energy called a thought strand, which persists for the duration or until you cast this spell again. […]

If you cast this spell while concentrating on a spell or an ability that allows you to read or manipulate the thoughts of others (such as detect thoughts or modify memory), you can transform the thoughts or memories you read, rather than your own, into a thought strand. […]

Casting this spell while holding a thought strand allows you to instantly receive whatever memory, idea, or message the thought strand contains. […]

It seems that it is intended that the memory is removed. This could, perhaps, create an unintended, strong combo with detect thoughts and obsolesce the modify memory spell.

It also could be more reasonable in scope of power for encode thoughts to simply render a copy of the thought, though this doesn’t seem to be what the spell says it does.

Does encode thoughts remove the targeted thought from the creature’s memory, or does it create a copy of that thought?

Related and inspired by: Can a creature with a Mind Blank spell active on itself target itself with Encode Thoughts?