## Is it wrong to use a link in this situation

I’m designing a language system that makes recommendations based on the text the user has entered in an accompanying text area. My question is, is my use of link styles in this situation wrong, if so, what would be a better alternative. Thanks in advance.

Note: When a user clicks on the link, the incorrect word in the text editor will be replaced.

## SharePoint 2013 Popular items web part – wrong results

Essentially, I have a Popular items webpart on a page, analytics is running – usage reports are being generated but results are not displaying correctly in the webpart. The popular items is set to a page library.

If I were to look at the usage reports or view the popular items page – I can retrieve these results. However the webpart seems to be listing the results in alphabetical order. There is no sort specified on the webpart. Interestingly enough, using the ‘_api/search/query’ with ‘viewsrecent’ seems to be returning null values.

My troubleshooting thus far… Checked search services, crawl status, tail trim, recent popularity timeframe and running services on server…

Any ideas where else to look?

## Android,Hichart how to show percentage on top of the pie chart?Please have look on my code.And correct me if anything wrong in my code

HIPlotOptions plotOptions = new HIPlotOptions();

plotOptions.setPie(new HIPie());

plotOptions.getPie().setAllowPointSelect(true);//For slicing the pie quard

plotOptions.getPie().setCursor(“pointer”);

plotOptions.getPie().setDataLabels(new HIDataLabels());

plotOptions.getPie().getDataLabels().setEnabled(true);

plotOptions.getPie().getDataLabels().setFormat(“{point.percentage:.1f} %“);

//here i’m added to show the 5 on the top of the pie chart plotOptions.getPie().getDataLabels().setStyle(new HICSSObject());

plotOptions.getPie().getDataLabels().getStyle().setColor(“black”);

plotOptions.getPie().setShowInLegend(true);

options.setPlotOptions(plotOptions);enter preformatted text here

## Wrong ReadSecurity and WriteSecurity (Item-level permissions) attributes in PnPProvisioningTemplate

I’m creating a provisioning template for a SharePoint 2016 list using Get-PnPProvisioningTemplate -Out export.xml -Handlers All -PersistBrandingFiles.

Some lists define different Item-level Permissions.

However, the exported file doesn’t include those permissions, defining 0 for both ReadSecurity and WriteSecurity: <pnp:ListInstance ... ReadSecurity="0" WriteSecurity="0" ...>.

Is there any way to include the correct Item-level permissions in exported templates?

## Halting problem proof is wrong, here is why

Instead of solving the halting problem, I will try to solve a less complicated problem in a similar manner.
Can we write a function that will predict if two given numerical inputs are equal. I will not create such function but, let’s assume such function can exist and we will call it H. Now we have H, a function that works and solves our problem, but let’s write another function and call it H+, a function that will negate the results of our perfectly working function.

Pseudocode:

def H(p1, p2):    #perfectly working piece of code that will solve our problem    # returns True if p1 == p2, else returns False  def H+(p1, p2):    return not H(p1, p2) 

Now when we have the code lets compare p1 = 1, p2 = 2. And let’s use the function H+, why not, it is the same function as H, a function we know works. H+ just negates the results from H. The result of H+ is True, how can it be?? we know that 1 is not equal to 2 so we have a paradox here hence proving we cannot write a function to predict if two numerical values will be equal.

Now to the Halting problem,
If I understand correctly the Halting problem was prooven in a similar way; There is a machine H that can predict if a problem is solvable. There is a bigger machine that uses H but negates its results called H+. Then if H+ is fed into H+ it will create a paradox. Of course, H+ will not work. We assume machine H is the one that will give us the right result, why do we think that H will still work the same way after modifying it and turning it into H+??
What happens if we feed H+ into H will we still have the same paradox? I don’t think so.

## Two Generals Problems – What’s wrong with my idea?

Some time ago, I’ve come across the Two Generals Problem and that it cannot be resolved. Now, recently, I’ve had an idea how to resolve it (to a certain degree). IMHO, it is a very obvious way to handle it, but I haven’t found this way to handle it anywhere and therefore assume my idea is flawed but I can’t stop thinking about what’s wrong.

General A sends a message to General B when to attack. The message contains the following information:

• Attack at time $$T$$.
• Send confirmation of receival.
• I will not confirm your confirmation.
• I will resend the time of attack after time $$t$$ if I did not get a confirmation.

That way, General A can be sure General B got the message when he gets the confirmation. General B can be $$(1 – p)^{m \cdot c}$$ sure that it passed after not getting the time of attack again, where

• $$p$$ := probability the confirmation passed
• $$m$$ := multiple of time $$t$$ that has passed.
• $$c$$ := count of messages sent per time unit (one of the solutions I’ve come across is to send a lot of messages at the same time).

It does not solve the problem that General B can’t be 100% sure that General A received the confirmation but after some time, he can be very sure.

Now, if we were to change the scenario slightly, we can reach a 100% certainty for both:

Assume both Generals do not only communicate in order to synchronize the attack but also for other purposes. In that case, General A can send the message:

• Attack at time $$T$$.
• Send confirmation of receival.
• I will not confirm your confirmation.
• I will resend the time of attack after time $$t$$ if I did not get a confirmation.
• I will not send any other communication until I’ve received your confirmation.

That way, General A can be sure that General B received the plan, when he gets the confirmation and General B can be sure General A received the confirmation when General A sending messages about something else.

So, what is wrong with my idea?

## Is Freenom weird or am I doing something wrong?

I am testing something and just want to make sure, that I don’t do something wrong. A and AAAA records worked fine, but TXT records for veri… | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1782764&goto=newpost

## Evince – printing a pdf with a wrong page-size

Whenever I print a PDF file from evince, and the PDF page size is different from my printer’s page size (e.g. Letter file on A4 printer), the printer emits a blank page. Is there a fix or a workaround?

## PnP – Apply-PnPProvisioningTemplate restoring data from wrong list

I’m using the latest release of PnP PowerShell for SharePoint Online.

I’m also creating a Provisioning Template using this command:

Get-PnPProvisioningTemplate -Out "C:\templates\mylist.pnp" -ListsToExtract "ListName" -Connection $sourceConnection  This command creates a .pnp file. Then I’m trying to restore template to another SharePoint site with this command: Apply-PnPProvisioningTemplate -Path "C:\templates\mylist.pnp" -ClearNavigation -Connection$  targetConnection 

Here’s where happen a weird thing: the list is created with correct name, but columns and data in it are from another list (that is in the parent SharePoint site and that was not extracted before). So at the and the command fails with an error. The other weird thing is that I’m not using commands to add data to .pnp file.

Is a known issue with this command or am I doing something wrong?

## Sharepoint ADFS Claims based auth trying auth on wrong server

Lab Environment: Two Stand-alone SharePoint 2016 VM servers. One was initially set up for testing and proof of concept (Server A). Once the concept was proven viable, I was tasked with creating a second server (Server B), a duplicate of the first. I restored the image of the first server to the second server and began to make the necessary changes (different domain). Everything is up and running with the exception of AFDS Claims-based Authentication. The second server (Server B) displays the choice for Windows Login or ADFS Login, but when you select ADFS login, it takes me to the original server (Server A) login screen and tries to auth. I have looked everywhere and can not seem to find where I need to make the required changes on Server B to auth locally instead of trying Server A.

Any thoughts?