No route was found matching the URL and request method. I don’t understand where the problem is

When I send parameters, I get this: No route was found matching the URL and request method.

/**   * Add json data on plugin.  *   * */ add_action('rest_api_init', 'register_api_hooks'); function register_api_hooks() {   register_rest_route(     'passwordless_register/v0', '/register/(?P<name>[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)/(?P<email>[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)/?aam-jwt=(?P<token>[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)',     array(       'methods'  => 'POST',       'callback' => 'wc_rest_user_endpoint_handler',     )   ); }  /**  * Register a new user  *  * @param  WP_REST_Request $  request Full details about the request.  * @return array $  args.  **/ function wc_rest_user_endpoint_handler($  request) {   $  request = new WP_REST_Request( 'POST', 'passwordless_register/v0/register/(?P<name>[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)/(?P<email>[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)/?aam-jwt=(?P<token>[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)' );   $  username = $  request['name'];   $  email = $  request['email'];   $  response = array();   $  error = new WP_Error();   if (empty($  username)) {     $  error->add(400, __("name field 'username' is required.", 'wp-rest-user'), array('status' => 400));     return $  error;   }   if (empty($  email)) {     $  error->add(401, __("Email field 'email' is required.", 'wp-rest-user'), array('status' => 400));     return $  error;   }   $  user_id = username_exists($  username);   if (!$  user_id && email_exists($  email) == false) {       $  password = wp_generate_password( 20, false );     $  user_id = wp_create_user($  username, $  password, $  email);     if (!is_wp_error($  user_id)) {       // Ger User Meta Data (Sensitive, Password included. DO NOT pass to front end.)       $  user = get_user_by('id', $  user_id);       // $  user->set_role($  role);       $  user->set_role('subscriber');       // WooCommerce specific code       if (class_exists('WooCommerce')) {         $  user->set_role('customer');       }       // Ger User Data (Non-Sensitive, Pass to front end.)       wp_nonce_field( 'wpa_passwordless_login_request', 'nonce', false );       $  unique_url = wpa_generate_url( $  email , $  nonce );       $  response['code'] = 200;       $  response['message'] = __("User '" . $  username . "' Registration was Successful", "wp-rest-user");       $  response['mail'] = __("Mail '" . $  email . "' Registration was Successful", "wp-rest-email");       $  response['password'] =  __("Pass '" . $  password . "' Registration was Successful", "wp-rest-pass");       $  response['url'] =  __("Link '" . $  unique_url . "' Registration was Successful", "wp-rest-url");     } else {       return $  user_id;     }   } else {     $  error->add(406, __("Email already exists, please try 'Reset Password'", 'wp-rest-user'), array('status' => 400));     return $  error;   }   return new WP_REST_Response($  response, 123);           } add_action( 'after_setup_theme', 'passwordless_register/v0' ); 

Trying to understand the encryption used at various steps of Tor

So I read up on "Diffie-Hellman" key exchange which to my knowledge is a way for two parties to create a "shared secret" but I don’t really know if this is a public key or a private key or something else entirely.

When I look up how Tor works, many videos use the analogy of the locked box. We establish an entry node, relay node, exit node (call them A, B, C). I send a locked box to A who unlocks it and inside is another locked box with a message included, "send this to B." A sends this box to B, who unlocks it and sees another locked box with a note, "send this to C." B sends the box to C, who unlocks it and sees a message, "Fetch the contents of" (the final request).

I don’t know if this analogy makes sense or if it’s even accurate.

Is this key exchange something that is done with the client and each of the three nodes, and that is how I am able to encrypt the message several times? Or is there some other algorithm used instead? I see that Tor uses RSA but I’m still unclear on how it all works together.

Trying to understand what is going on. It would help to see a minimal example using the actual encryption techniques.

How to understand a single packet embedded with multiple requests?

When I read Multi VERB Single Request:

This Attack is also a variation of the Excessive Verb Attack strategy. The attacking BOT creates multiple HTTP requests, not by issuing them one after another during a single HTTP session, but by forming a single packet embedded with multiple requests.

How to understand the a single packet embedded with multiple requests?

is it mean one HTTP request packet have multiple HTTP requests?

Trying to understand Kempe’s algorithm for Graph Coloring

I am trying to understand Kempe’s algorithm to $ k$ -color a planar graph. This is what I understand till now:

Trying to 6-color a planer graph ($ k=6$ )

  1. Find a vertex of degree <= 5 ($ k-1$ )
  2. Remove this vertex
  3. Color the rest of the graph using a recursive call
  4. Put the vertex back, since its degree was at most 5 ($ k-1$ ), we still have at least 1 color left to color this vertex

I understand this procedure but I was curious about the first step: finding a vertex of degree at most $ k-1$ . What would happen if there is no such vertex in the graph? For example, all vertices have a degree $ > k$ . In that case will the algorithm fail?

Why does PHP’s strtotime() not understand a Unix timestamp? Or: Why don’t programming languages support “versions” of themselves? [closed]

Yes, I know that strtotime returns a Unix timestamp from a "time string". However, there are numerous situations where I’ve fed a semi-unknown "time string" into it and been baffled when I got a bool(false) returned instead of it just returning the same integer back:

$  current_timestamp = time(); var_dump(strtotime($  current_timestamp)); 



I have long since made a wrapper function to strtotime, as I have done with every single PHP function I use, which handles this for it, so it’s not a practical problem for me anymore. However, it’s very interesting to me how this kind of situation can happen.

Why do such smart people (no, this is not sarcasm), who are able to create a highly advanced and complex programming language, which I could never do myself even if I got 50 years of "paused time" from now to do it, just seem to "overlook" many such basic "details"?

Is this another case of "we knew about it early on, and agree that it was not right, but people had begun expecting this bad behaviour from the function, and then we couldn’t change it, and as time went by, it became less and less possible"?

I’m very torn about things like this. This particular thing I find idiotic, but there is a good point against changing things around. Just look at the nightmare that is Python. I wouldn’t want to have to constantly try to re-read the manual for every single PHP function I use, wondering if PHP 8.1 or something has changed the parameter order around or something evil like that. If I have to choose between that or fix things myself, I choose the latter.

I just wish that language authors, and in particular PHP since it’s what I use, would just introduce some kind of "legacy mode" where the old/original versions of functions are kept around in the "engine", but only activated unless the user does <?php8 for their scripts, or something like that. Or maybe set a configuration option, to make the source code files less ugly. That seems like a perfect compromise to me. Why is that not actually done?

Remote APIs, such as Stripe (payment-related), frequently have "versions" where old ones are supported for ages/ever, so why can’t local programming language engines also do that?

How to understand quantifier without predication ” ∀(λφ. (φ x m→ φ y))”?

I am reading about embedding/automation of modal logics in classical higher order logic ( and Goedels proof of God’s existence is prominent example here (as encoded for Isabelle/HOL).

This embedding has embedding for Leibniz equality for individuals:

abbreviation mLeibeq :: "μ ⇒ μ ⇒ σ" (infixr "mL=" 90) where "x mL= y ≡ ∀(λφ. (φ x m→ φ y))" 

and this type of euqality is used for the first axiom already:

A1a: "[∀(λΦ. P (λx. m¬ (Φ x)) m→ m¬ (P Φ))]" 

which can be written without lambdas as:

A1a: ∀φ[P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)] 

My question is – how to understand the expression ∀(λφ. (φ x m→ φ y)), because usually we have ∀x.P(x)? I.e. universal quantifier expects the argument (x) and the predicate (P(x)), but this expression contains noone know what? is entire (λφ. (φ x m→ φ y)) and argument x or Predicate P(x)? What can be omitted here, what is the convention used here?

Can’t understand difference in fulltext results – contains, contains with wildcard, freetext

I have a table with an fulltext index on the column named Filecontent. The table has a row where content contains "W 917". For context, the content column on this rows contains much more than just what I’m searching for.

I don’t understand why I’m getting different results depending on whether I’m using contains, contains with wildcard or freetext. Why is CONTAINS without wildcard getting results, but CONTAINS with wildcard doesn’t?

-- Searching for "W 917" -- No match - CONTAINS with wildcard SELECT * FROM InvoicePDFContent t1 WHERE CONTAINS(t1.Filecontent, '"W 917*"')  -- Match - CONTAINS SELECT * FROM InvoicePDFContent t1 WHERE CONTAINS(t1.Filecontent, '"W 917"')  -- Match - FREETEXT SELECT * FROM InvoicePDFContent t1 WHERE FREETEXT(t1.Filecontent, '"W 917"')   -- Searching for "W" -- Match - CONTAINS with wildcard SELECT * FROM InvoicePDFContent t1 WHERE CONTAINS(t1.Filecontent, '"W*"')  -- No match - CONTAINS SELECT * FROM InvoicePDFContent t1 WHERE CONTAINS(t1.Filecontent, '"W"')  -- No match - FREETEXT SELECT * FROM InvoicePDFContent t1 WHERE FREETEXT(t1.Filecontent, '"W"') ´´´ 

is there any way for hydra to understand the?

is there any way for hydra to understand the correct combination ^USER^ and ^PASS^ in a http-post-form authentication attack based on the length of the body response?

Like in Burpsuite you can look at the length and understand password and username.For username jack, the found password is 12345678 based on the different length of the response

ar 15 build kit

Does an entity speaking the god’s language understand every language?

I can’t remember exactly the name, but I heard of a language used by gods, wich is understandable by every sentient being. It directly form the concept in the auditor’s mind (thus, you can adress everybody at the same time, even if they’re from different origins/species/etc).

It can not be learned and is reserved to superior entity to communicate with mortals (so it’s probably not the Celestial)

Now, let’s say for story’s sake, that a mortal does know it (for GM-ing reasons). Does the ability to speak God’s language grant him the ability to understand other sentients beings, speaking differents language?

First, I would say no, as the mortal doesn’t know other languages. But how do gods understand their followers in that case? Heavy use of “Comprehend Languages” spell?