Barebone Or cPanel installed Or Any cP generally?

Does installing the cpanel software consumes from Server resources[URL="https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/academicprograms/1/webf… | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1834362&goto=newpost

Microsoft Clarity Analytics Now Generally Available

Microsoft Clarity is a tool to help webmasters and marketers understand user behaviour.

dnd 5e – For a Pact of the Chain warlock, is choosing to have their familiar attack generally the worse option for the warlock’s action?

I have a warlock who has chosen Pact of the Chain. This gives me the find familiar spell, which states:

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

Pact of the Chain allows a few extra forms for my familiar to take, as per the following:

When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

The part I’m interested in is where Pact of the Chain says:

Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its reaction.

Given how much damage a warlock can output with eldritch blast or similar, it seems fairly suboptimal to have your familiar attack instead of you (if we assume no multiclassing to give access to Extra Attack, and of course as a Pact of the Chain warlock I don’t have access to Thirsting Blade).

I’m not sure why a warlock would choose to have their familiar attack instead of just casting eldritch blast or similar. I’ve listed all of the various forms the familiar can take above in case there’s a specific form that has an advantage that another form would not, but nothing is jumping out at me. I’m not asking about the various other ways that familiars can be helpful besides attacking, this is just about having it attack instead of you.


The only reasons I can think of/have found, all of which seem pretty situational:


My question is not “what is every scenario in which it would be useful for your familiar to attack instead of you” (I mean, originally, it kinda was at first, but then half way through writing this out I realised that that’s probably an unbounded list or something, and would attract answers along the lines of “What about this scenario…”, which the stack doesn’t do so well with).

Instead, my question is:

Is my assumption correct that having your familiar attack instead of you is generally the worse option (ignoring situational cases like my bullet list above)? Or am I overlooking something that makes this more useful than I suspect (even if that’s simply because there are a lot of situational cases that I’m overlooking, which doesn’t require an answer to iterate them all)?

visual studio – VisualStudio 2019 is it possible te set the build variables from CMAKE. And more generally how to set them up

I am keeping asking questions about VisualStudio but to be honest I do not understand a word from its documentation.

In the json files generated by the VS are placed build variables like ${workspaceRootFolderName}, ${workspaceRoot}, ${env.gccpath} etc etc but I do not know how to set it up.

If the the CMAKE project.

I have two questions:

  1. Is it possible to set those variables from CMAKE files?
  2. If not how can I set them up another way. At the moment project builds but VS generated launch files cannot evaluate the variables

enter image description here

Is there a regex way to match generally all possible subdomains in robots.txt?

Given a website with the fictional domain example.com.
The owner of this website added a subdomain : x.example.com.

  • After one year, the owner changed x to y so to have y.example.com
  • After two years, the owner changed y to z so to have z.example.com

Each of the three scenarios did not involve a change of all example.com structures at robots.txt so the owner got a serious long term SEO problem because crawling software were requested to scan non existing webpages (x, and y ones respectively).

What regex prophylaxis could have been used by the owner, beforehand to prevent the SEO problem;
Is there a regex way to match generally all possible subdomains in robots.txt?

equipment protection – Which filter is the more generally useful: Skylight 1A or Skylight 1B?

I know this is an ancient question but on reading the answers saying these filters are pointless I couldn’t ignore it.

The benefits of filtering UV and/or IR is that camera sensors are sensitive to a wider range of light than is visible (that’s why many video/cctv cameras can see full-colour at day and by infra-red illumination at night). Many sensors/imaging modules have an IR-cut filter built in that’s physically moved in & out of the light path by a servo (Sony industrial camera blocks as used in most high-end CCTV are #1 example of this). The humble Raspberry Pi camera module is available with the filter removed “NoIR version” to enable night-vision.

Non-visible light picked up in this way can really screw with your picture – depending which pixels of the sensor are sensitive to which colours you can get an odd tint, colour shift, fringing, incorrect metering and confused auto-focus – we have seen all of these in the field.

With modern sensors with their amazing low-light performance you hit problems more quickly than before – with IR or UV wavelengths being focused differently through the lens you can end up with an AF system that’s battling a picture with multiple focal-points in low-light situations. We had to prove this using a cold-mirror filter on one installation where bright IR illuminators were battling bright flood-lighting for dominance.

Personally I notice skylight filters knock the brightness of the sky down a tad, making it a deeper blue with better defined clouds rather than just a big bright area of little interest.

All that aside, a skylight filter is also an excellent and cheap way to protect an expensive lens. Being available for cheap (

For reference, here’s the spectral response of a Sony HD industrial camera block that costs more than many entry-level DSLR’s:

Sony FCB-EV7520 spectral response

Notice how it’s sensitive down into the UV end as well as way up into the non-visible IR end, and how the sensitivities of the three colours (RGB) do not just tail off outside of their target colour – this is how you get an odd purple-fringed light from IR as the blue + red cells pick it up first.

dnd 5e – Is a warlock choosing to have their familiar attack instead generally the worse option?

I have a warlock who has chosen Pact of the Chain. This gives me the find familiar spell, which states:

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

Pact of the Chain allows a few extra forms for my familiar to take, as per the following:

When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

The part I’m interested in is where Pact of the Chain says:

Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its reaction.

Given how much damage a warlock can output with eldritch blast or similar, it seems fairly suboptimal to have your familiar attack instead of you (if we assume no multiclassing to give access to Extra Attack, and of course as a Pact of the Chain warlock I don’t have access to Thirsting Blade).

I’m not sure why a warlock would choose to have their familiar attack instead of just casting eldritch blast or similar. I’ve listed all of the various forms the familiar can take above in case there’s a specific form that has an advantage that another form would not, but nothing is jumping out at me. I’m not asking about the various other ways that familiars can be helpful besides attacking, this is just about having it attack instead of you.


The only reasons I can think of/have found, all of which seem pretty situational:


My question is not “what is every scenario in which it would be useful for your familiar to attack instead of you” (I mean, originally, it kinda was at first, but then half way through writing this out I realised that that’s probably an unbounded list or something, and would attract answers along the lines of “What about this scenario…”, which the stack doesn’t do so well with).

Instead, my question is are my assumptions correct about having your familiar attacking instead of you generally the worse option (ignoring situational cases like my bullet list above), or am I overlooking something that makes this more useful than I suspect (even if that’s simply because there are a lot of situational cases that I’m overlooking, which doesn’t require an answer to iterate them all)?

applications – Is it possible to change the default launch behavior of apps, either individually or generally?

I don’t like that apps naturally pull focus when you launch them, especially when they launch in multiple stages (like many games/ide’s). I saw another post that showed how use terminal to launch apps into the background or hidden, and I’m hoping to find a way to make this the default behavior.

An example to clarify: Say I have my Mail app open full screen and I’m looking through my emails, and one or a few have links that I want to open, but not necessarily go to right away. I’d like to be able to launch Safari and open the link with out getting pulled away from looking through my email.

I’m running Mojave 10.14.6 on a MacBook Pro. Thank you for any ideas!

Are critical theory and cultural Marxist theory generally considered liberal or conservative ideology?

“Generally considered” by WHOM?

From what I know of the people I meet and their political opinions, “cultural Marxist theory” and “critical theory” aren’t GENERALLY considered at all.

A fairly small number of highly educated college graduates think about them, and those people aren’t either “liberal” or “conservative,” but — well — Marxist.

— democratic socialist for less BS and more truth on the Internet

authentication – How do SRP (and PAKE generally) protect against verifier leak

I have been reading into PAKE protocols, specifically starting with SRP RFC2945

The gist of the requirement on the server is that the server saves triplet (username, verifier (v), salt (s)) in the credentials table.

Where verifier v = g^x % N (the ^ operator is the exponentiation operation)
and x = SHA(<salt> | SHA(<username> | ":" | <raw password>))

Now during the authentication dance, the client obtains the salt (s) from the server and computes the same verifier (v) that the server is using. It can compute this value because it collects the username and password from the user themselves.

In the next few steps the client can subtract the component v from the servers challenge B = (v + g^b) % N and arrive at a key derived from S.

Client: S = (B - g^x) ^ (a + u * x) % N

My question is that if someone hacks my database and dumps the credential table with (username, verifier (v), salt (s)) they immediately have access to all verifiers for each username. Then what stops them from using the obtained verifiers to imitate a client and complete the client side authentication steps? So instead of computing the verifier (v) from the real username and password, they can simply use the verifier obtained maliciously from the server to continue the client side computation and arrive at the same key as the server.

Disclaimer: I admit I do not understand fully the maths but generally the concept that such crypto protocols rely on the property of exponents that (g^a)^b = (g^b)^a = g^ab