New and Fresh Private + Public Proxies Lists Everyday!
Get and Download New Proxies from NewProxyLists.com
What you should actually use is the IFS function instead
=IF(LEN(A2),IFS(A2<=60, "F", A2<=70, "D", A2<=80, "C", A2<=90, "B", A2<=100, "A"),"Unknown")
Using the extra function ArrayFormula we apply the same formula to each row for the whole range
=ArrayFormula(IF(LEN(A2:A),
IFS(A2:A<=60, "F", A2:A<=70, "D", A2:A<=80, "C", A2:A<=90, "B", A2:A<=100, "A"),""))
Pretty straightforward… what is the conceptual long term bull case for BTC? Of course, fundamentally, the answer is “increased demand and limited supply”, but this is not what I am looking for. Something like ‘BTC will be utilized by more people as digital currency becomes more widespread and fiat/paper currency is phased out’. This example seems somewhat plausible, but I am looking for a more in-depth rationale. For example, where would BTC be used in the bull case? By governments? Specialized stores? Does it become accepted by major online marketplaces (ie Amazon, FB marketplace, etc…)? Also, how can you reliably mitigate risk on a large-bull-case-scale if its decentralized? What if someone steals your BTC by logging into your account and transferring it elsewhere? There’s no bank to reverse this process. How do you get stores to accept it as a currency given its complexity and risk? It seems, to me, too high risk/too complex for the general population to use it to be utilized on some huge scale that backs up the long term bull case, but perhaps I am missing something?
I have a table (say dbo.AppUsers) with a clustered index on the always increasing, application generated column AppUserId.
I have also a Bit column IsDisabled, that is used to logically delete/disable users.
Now, the majority of the queries on the table will include a Where IsDisabled = 0 clause, which is fine.
I’m wondering if I should include the IsDisabled column in the clustered index or if there is a best practice in this scenario.
My thoughts on this:
I should have IsDisabled in the clustered index, because list queries should not read the logically deleted rows from disk.
or…
I should not have IsDisabled in the clustered index, because it could mess up with table fragmentation.
Is there some sort of trade off?
Thanks!
Download
Please answer my question sir, any help will be appreciated!
I have a use case describing the following:The actor can view the table of listings.
and I want to create another use case where the actor can delete a listing.
I consider viewing the table of listings a precondition in order to be able to delete any listings, so can I include the use case title as a precondition or should I just state that The actor is viewing the listings table.
A good case study for a UX portfolio is one that uncovers behavior problems, tests hypotheses, explore solutions and track results (rather than jumping in directly to solutions and assuming the right problems are being solved).
For example, if the restaurant is lacking customers, there might be a multitude of reasons why. Maybe it’s the food, the staff, location, weather, covid, the prices, the economy, etc none of which are gonna be solved by updating their website.
Sou novato na programação PHP e estou com o seguinte problema. Estou buscando minhas páginas usando o switch case via $_GET, localmente (usando o xampp) eu consegui fazer funcionar, mas quando coloco online ele não acha as páginas.
Organizei meu diretório da seguinte forma (achei que ficaria mais organizado).
usei include_once() incluindo o header e o footer na index.
MEU MENU:
href=”index.php?pg=home”
href=”index.php?pg=historia”
href=”index.php?pg=titulos”
href=”index.php?pg=agenda”
href=”index.php?pg=fotos”
href=”index.php?pg=contato”
switch case:
$url = $_GET(“pg”);
switch($url){
case ‘home’:
header(“location:/site/index.php”);
break;
case ‘historia’:
header(‘location:/site/historia/index.php’);
break;
case ‘titulos’:
header(“location:/site/titulos/index.php”);
break;
case ‘agenda’:
header(“location:/site/agenda/index.php”);
break;
case ‘fotos’:
header(“location:/site/fotos/index.php”);
break;
case ‘contato’:
header(“location:/site/contato/index.php”);
break;
default :
header(“url=/index.php”);
}
Então, para o Switch conseguir achar as páginas localmente tive colocar o caminho desde a pasta raiz, tentei, site/contato/index.php, contato/index.php, /contato/index.php varias formas diferente e não funcionou só mesmo com todo diretório /site/contato/index.php. Mas funcionou local então beleza.
O problema é quando coloco online, ai que ele não carrega as página mesmo, nem eu alterando o caminho, colocando /public_html/contato/index.php ou public_html/contato/index.php ou /contato/index.php.
Uso uma hospedagem gratuita para testes
https://20dejulho.000webhostapp.com/
Se alguém puder me ajudar ficarei grato.
The “speeding in excess of 100mph” charge, CVC 22348(b), is a civil infraction. We do not issue arrest warrants for those. However, failure to appear (CVC 40508) is a crime, and this charge will become that soon.
On the speeding-over-100, you (or your lawyer) do need to face the judge; and that is so they can give you a stern warning, explain the future consequences for doing it again, and make you “scared straight”. (straight is US slang for obeying the law).
Failure to appear, however, is a misdemeanor and will almost certainly result in a warrant for your arrest. This is an actual crime. It may be surprising that a civil infraction turns into a criminal matter if ignored, but that is exactly what happens. Given the language in the letter and the fact that you obviously missed your resolve-it date, that may have already happened.
Heading home without handling this properly is a novice mistake. Your only option now is to hire a lawyer, since you have left the country. Hire one who is local to the court your ticket is in – it should be a lawyer who knows the judges and staff, and isn’t disliked by them. My favorite way to get lawyer referrals is call other nearby lawyers who do not practice in that area of law, and go “I’m sorry, do you know anyone who could help me?” Make 3-4 such calls, you’ll start hearing the same name over and over.
FTA is a new, second charge, so that would be two charges. The upside is this makes it easier to plea-bargain since you now have two things to trade.
All this will happen at arraignment, which is only the initial phase; but given your options it will surely finish here. That is common in traffic matters.
If you had done this sooner, you could have pled not-guilty and asked for a proper trial (which is still a 2-3 minute affair). An order would be issued for the officer to come and testify. Generally if the officer appears, you lose, and if he doesn’t, you’re off scot-free. But you lost that opportunity.
Next you can say you do not wish to plead guilty to 111 mph but would plead guilty to 99 mph, and hope the judge will allow that. The reason to do this is to save a few hundred dollars (the point on your record and opportunity for traffic school doesn’t matter to you). You are betting the judge doesn’t want to waste time with a trial. (except now he knows there won’t be a trial, oops). You can still try arguing it; good chance it will work.
However, if the failure to appear exists, it’s more complicated. You must get that dismissed! You can argue your bona-fide effort to reach the courthouse previously. It would have helped if you were standing in front of him personally, obviously come quite a distance and effort to answer this charge, can’t do that now, but judges are pretty sanguine about dismissing failure-to-appear if you really do appear (via lawyer is fine) willingly out of your own initiative Of course, this will only impress them if you do it right away.
The key is to resolve it together with the underlying ticket as a plea-bargain; if you already resolved the ticket, you have nothing to bargain with! So you ask the judge to dismiss the failure-to-appear if you plead guilty on the 99 mph. Or if that is not acceptable to the judge, ask to dismiss the FTA if you plead guilty on 111mph.
I would have said to try trial-by-mail. However the CVC 22348(b) is crystal clear; you must show up in court in person: either you or your lawyer.
If the failure-to-appear was not a factor, I might have said try it anyway and see if it works. But it’s a gamble; the judge may not have the freedom to waive the CVC 22348(b) requirement since you always can hire a lawyer.
However, dismissing the failure-to-appear is an absolute top priority. This would make you an international criminal, and that’s not nearly as much fun as the James Bond movies make it out to be.
As such, I would say you are pretty much stuck with hiring a lawyer. Because he can manage every possible contingency. He’s pretty much going to argue what I said above. You could’ve done it yourself if you’d done it sooner. Live and learn.
It really doesn’t help your case that you were inside the USA the entire time the ticket was pending and you did nothing. They will feel like you consider their court a joke. On the other hand, if you retain a lawyer after you had already made your escape, that says you take your relationship with America seriously, and earlier was a novice mistake you own up to. They will not care that you fled the country since they would not have sent you to jail for this.
You need to do this right away. If you wait months — or worse, if you put it off until the next time you want to visit the USA! — it will be much, much worse. It happens all the time where a traveler clears the pre-check, arrives at JFK Airport, and gets denied entry because of something the pre-check missed and put on a plane back home (at his expense).
By the way, when you sign a traffic ticket in CA and many other states, you are not admitting guilt. You are swearing a promise to appear in court, which is part of a fair exchange: you promise to appear later, and they let you go now. If you are convicted of violating that promise, you won’t be trusted in the future, and could be hauled to jail while you watch your friends be cited and released for the exact same charge.
And if an FTA remains unresolved, then the next time any state officer stops you for any reason, he will probably take you to jail. (he’ll make a judgment call based on his ability and the seriousness of the underlying crime). Sorry, if you’re sitting at JFK Airport, California will not pay to get you extradited (give you a free flight to CA) for a speeding ticket.
Also, if you had a CA driver’s license, insted of 99 you’d plead 29 over the speed limit; 30-over disqualifies you for traffic school by mail, which would remove the point from your record.
I am working on my UI/UX Designer portfolio and I have 4-5 projects to choose from what to include. I will need to write about the process that I had during these projects etc. But recently, when I used one app that I use quite often, I spotted one UX problem that I instantly understood that would need to be fixed. That will make the user navigating the app without frustrating situations. It’s quite a small fix to make, but it will make the app better. My question is – would that be a good idea to include this type of case in my portfolio?