How Different is Dogs in the Vineyard from more “Traditional” RPGs?

Our gaming group has got a lot of experience in playing more mainstream/traditional RPGs; we’ve played D&D (3.0,3.5,4.0) World of Darkness, Rogue Trader, and even a little L5R. However, after the recent implosion of a WoD campaign, we’ve decided to try going for a more ‘rules light’ system, and we’re going to try out “Dogs in the Vineyard” (the rules at least; the setting itself is bothering some).

I understand that the game itself has a very different approach to things; what are some of the core ‘gotchas’ that we should be watching out for? Things that are so different that it’d never occur to us to check how we ‘should’ be doing it?

In theory, should neuromorphic computers be more efficient than traditional computers when performing logic?

There is this general sentiment about neuromorphic computers that they are simply "more efficient" than von Neuman.

I’ve heard a lot of talk about neuromorphic computers in the context of machine learning.
But, is there any research into performing logic and maths in general on such computers? How would one translate arithmetic, logic and algorithms and into "instructions" for a neuromorphic computer, if there are no logic structures in the hardware itself?

It is common to draw parallels with a brain in this context, so here’s one: Brains are great at recognising faces and such, but I don’t think I can do maths faster than an Arduino (and that thing doesn’t need much energy).

How Wix use simplified chinese not traditional chinese

I’ve tried to change language to chinese
image-20200813103214059 image-20200813103244357 but system use traditional chinese not simplified chinese like below photo

Wix Chat :
我們會盡快回復 should be translated to 我们会尽快回复
技術支援 should be translated to 技术支援

enter image description here

Sorting :
名稱 should be translated to 名称


Product Quick View :
快速瀏覽 should be translated to 快速浏览
enter image description here

Product :
首頁 should be translated to 首页 enter image description here

benefits of storing columns in JSON instead of traditional tables?

Are there any benefits in using JSON over traditional table structures?

Imagine having a table structure like this:

 create table table1 (         t_id int,         first_name varchar(20),         last_name varchar(20),         age int     ) 

What if you stored the same columns inside a json like this:

{     "first_name":"name",     "last_name":"name",     "age":2 } 

and have a table like this:

create table table2 (     t_id int,     attribute jsonb ) 

Correct me if im wrong, but since both variants are causing a row to be completely rewritten if there have been any updates or deletes on that row, then both variants are identical in that regard.

Is using traditional 2FA codes a pre-requisite for using U2F FIDO key in Dashlane/1Password?

Over the past few weeks, I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to structure my security plan based on a password manager, just two/three strong master passwords and the use of physical U2F keys such as YubiKey. Without going into too much detail, a part of my plan would necessarily include the following:

I have a password manager that stores passwords to all my online accounts (apart from the main email used for registering such accounts). For reasons connected to other parts of my plan:

  • these individual accounts if possible will be secured by the traditional 2FA only, where a 30-second code is generated using a phone app.
  • the manager itself will be secured with a physical U2F key only.

The reasoning behind this was as follows. Consider these two unlikely scenarios:

  1. My master password to the manager and my phone with the 2FA app get stolen. Because the manager can be accessed with the U2F key only, I’m safe.
  2. My master password and the U2F key get stolen. The attacker is able to log into the manager, but because the accounts whose passwords it stores require the 2FA code, I’m safe since the attacker doesn’t have my phone. (They’ll only be able to access the websites that don’t have the 2FA option, but we disregard these as unimportant here).

However, reading Dashlane and 1Password technical support pages, the way I understand them is that to add a key to my manager, I also need to first enable to code-based 2FA (perhaps that’s not the case, but the information was not clearly conveyed). Keeper seems to support U2F without enforcing such 2FA. LastPass does not seem to support U2F in the first place, only OTP.

The reason why I’m worried about this is:

  1. My master password and phone with the 2FA app get stolen. If both 2FA codes and U2F are enabled for the manager, the attacker is now able to get into it (contrary to case 1). Moreover, since the accounts inside it use 2FA, they can also access these accounts (contrary to case 2). Security compromised!

It is therefore crucial to me to use only one type of second-step authentication for my manager. As a related example, despite Google allowing many methods, if you enroll in their Advanced Protection Programme, all other methods apart from the U2F keys are invalidated. I would like the same from my manager. Is this possible in Dashlane or 1Password?

P.S. I am aware of the risks of using only the U2F keys for my manager. However, some managers, e.g. Dashlane, offer one-time recovery codes than could be stored securely somewhere else. One could also take a note of the (usually 32-digit) code associated with the QR picture for enabling the usual 2FA, without actually enabling it at that point.

How to explain to traditional people why they should upgrade their old Windows XP device?

This is an issue I’m recurringly facing: older people from my family (or people who my family members know) can be surprisingly reluctant to apply most basic security measures when they’re using they’re PCs. The particular issues vary, but this time I’m struggling with a really eggregious one: the refusal to upgrade from their ~20 years old Windows XP PC. (Or is this an even older version of Windows? I don’t really know as I did not see it yet.)

How can I explain that it is a bad idea nowadays to connect to the internet with such a PC?

I think that this question will only be clear and meaningful if I add an addendum about the mindset of such people… which seems to me to be really peculiar:

  • They seem to have no notion of obsolescence of things. In their minds, a computer is in good shape if and only if it is capable to perform the tasks they need it to perform (eg. “receive this important document sent to my e-mail address, make such-and-such modifications to this document, send it back“). Thus if they’re able to do this it is hard to explain to them they should buy a new PC.
  • They remember the times of poverty, when it was irresponsible (and actually plain stupid) to replace things carelessly. In their times broken things were being fixed if possible, and only replaced if repairs were no longer possible. Some of them are still poor, so they may have actual (rather than just mental) reasons to refuse to spend a three digit sum on new things.
  • They seem reluctant to understand how to operate stuff from the modern era. They seem to want a concise, clearly defined order of steps necessary to perform a task (rather than understanding of the abstractions of modern GUIs so that they can operate their PCs regardless of whatever it shows them). If anything strays from this clear order of steps (eg the computer shows them an unexpected dialog) they get confused and may deem their computer “broken” (and call me to “fix” it for them).
    • Actual example: “I don’t know what happens, why can I not get to my e-mail inbox without all of this annoying stuff? It keeps displaying me these annoying messages about passwords and phone numbers! Please fix it for me so that clicking this picture will get me to my e-mail inbox!”
    • As a result, whenever anything changes in their computer (eg this WinXP is upgraded finally…) that interferes with their well-known, predictable order of steps / responses from their PC it is likely they’ll say I “broke more than I fixed”. They have a clear definition of “fixing” their PC… “make it behave exactly as it used to“.
  • When told about security (eg that a middle school kiddie next door could break into their PC) they tend to respond along the lines of “Am I working in a three letter agency?” or “Who am I, a millionaire? There’s no reason anyone would want to target me!

Actually, if I think about it, their point of view, even if fallacious, kind of makes sense… They simply treat a PC as a tool like that they’re accustomed of, something like a hammer or a (traditional, simple, devoid of electronics) vacuum cleaner… Their approach, listed above, seems reasonable if they were talking about a hammer rather than a PC, I guess…

I’m running out of arguments. In the spirit of this question, may I ask how to talk to such old-timers?

Is there a way to substitute a Bracket for a Matrix Rather than a Parentheses When Using Traditional Form

I’m trying to use Mathematica to work my way through some Linear Algebra problems given by Gilbert Strang (Introduction to Linear Algebra). Consequently, I would like to use his notation as much as possible, in part, to learn better how to typeset using Mathematica and potentially to develop a complete set of answers to his problem sets using Mathematica rather than Matlab or R that mimics the look of his text.

Traditional form using Mathematica will place a parentheses () around a matrix or column vector, which is a common representation to recognize an array as a matrix (column vector). However, Strang uses brackets [], another common notation to reflect a matrix.

In a previous question regarding TraditionalForm some suggested that in the cases of functions one could use one of several user-defined functions to do this.

tF = RawBoxes[ToBoxes[TraditionalForm[#]] /. {"(" -> "[", ")" -> "]"}] &;  tF2 = Module[{f = ToString@#2}, RawBoxes[MakeBoxes[TraditionalForm[#]] //.    RowBox[{f, "(", else___, ")"}] :> RowBox[{"f", "[", else, "]"}]]] &;      makeBracketsF[f_] := (f /: MakeBoxes[f[a___], TraditionalForm] :=  RowBox[{ToString@f, "[", MakeBoxes[Row[{a}, ","], TraditionalForm],   "]"}]) 

However, the last two fail, as either the slot can not be filled with a matrix (column vector) with more than two rows, or the Traditional form is protected and can not be passed from the Module. The first answer gets close, but the bracket only surrounds the central value and does not encompass all three values, making the output look funky rather than typeset.

Is there a way to accomplish this seemingly simple substitution to permit a more flexible use of Traditional form to surround a matrix with a suitably sized pair of brackets to conform to a widely used traditional form for matrices?

metaheuristics vs exact and traditional algorithms

Recently, my friend has submitted a paper and solved a problem with an exact method. Surprisingly, a reviewer asked him why he used an exact method instead of the popular metaheuristics algorithms! We replied to the reviewer based on our knowledge as follows:

“We use metaheuristics when solving the problem is hard and when we could not evaluate the exact solution in a short time. Where the problem is easy to solve, using metaheuristics is incorrect because of an inexact solution and also spending more time. Moreover, unlike metaheuristics methods, we can do sensitivity analysis in an exact method.”

Now, the referee accepts this content providing that authors add some related references! Although I think the above reasons are true, I need some references to prove them in this special situation.

Is there any intersection in the applications of multi-agent reinforcement learning and more traditional branches of machine learning?

From my limited understanding, it seems like the structure of problems that multi agent reinforcement learning attempts to attack is quite different from the structure of problems in more traditional areas of machine learning. Is this a correct assessment?

If so, is multi agent reinforcement learning doomed to be relegated to the backwaters of machine learning, in terms of applications?

Why does C# type pattern matching use a different variable scoping behavior than traditional switch blocks?

Traditional switch blocks have one scope, so the following throws a compiler error “A local variable or function named ‘message’ is already defined in this scope”:

switch(value) {     case 1:         string message = "Val: 1";         break;     case 2:          string message = "Val: 2";         break; } 

As Eric Lippert states:

A reasonable question is “why is this not legal?” A reasonable answer is “well, why should it be”? You can have it one of two ways. Either this is legal:

switch(y) {     case 1:  int x = 123; ... break;     case 2:  int x = 456; ... break; } 

or this is legal:

switch(y) {     case 1:  int x = 123; ... break;     case 2:  x = 456; ... break; } 

but you can’t have it both ways. The designers of C# chose the second way as seeming to be the more natural way to do it.

There are other good explanations too, like this one:

I think a good reason is that in every other case, the scope of a “normal” local variable is a block delimited by braces ({}).

So then why does scoping behave differently with a type pattern matching switch block?

Animal p = new Dog();  switch(p) {     case Dog a:         break;     case Cat a: // Why is this legal?                    break; }