## will 4 nodes server use less power than 4 servers ?

‘);
var sidebar_align = ‘right’;
var content_container_margin = parseInt(‘350px’);
var sidebar_width = parseInt(‘330px’);
//–>

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.

## Power consumption of blade chassis and servers

So I’m looking to upgrade from my nice 1u to a shiny 5u Dell Blade Chassis.

While I know power consumption for my 1u server (Dell R610) is around 700w-1amp at peak (using L-series processors) — I was curious to know do blade servers consume more or the near the same amount amps?

Granted it all depends on the actual setup of the blades themselves; however does anyone on the forum use Blade Servers for infrastructure and can give a rough amount of power they pull?

Thanks.

## Trump who defends the confederate flag and  tweeted a video of a guy yelling “white power” thinks “Black Lives Matter” is a symbol of hate?

When Trump has a chance to attack Democrats he acts with speed and focus. But when he learned that Russia was offering bounties on US soldiers he ignored it, and even lobbied for Russia to rejoin the G8 (currently the G7).

This is a far bigger scandal than Benghazi but conservatives will ignore it because they are partisan traitors with hatred in their hearts.

## sharepoint online – How can I delete sharing links using Power Automate?

I have created a flow with the following steps:

1. Get all document sets in a library
2. For each document set (all steps using Send an HTTP Request to SharePoint)
• Reset Role inheritance
• Break Role inheritance `breakroleinheritance(copyRoleAssignments=false,clearSubscopes=true)`
• Set new permissions

This flow works mostly as expected. The permissions are set correctly, but if i look at a document inside the document set that has been shared previously, there are remnants of the sharing link which I would prefer wasn’t there, with a message stating “This link is broken. Delete it and share the item again”

Question: Is there a way to remove all potential sharing links for documents inside a document set as part of the flow?

## How to estimates the cross power spectral density (CPSD) of two timeseries?

So, I am looking for some basic guidelines about how to estimates CPSD, Magnitude-Squared Coherence, and Cross Spectrum Phase, in Mathematica.

## What do you think about Cons claiming that before Trump posted the video Twitter altered the link to a White Power video making him look bad?

What do you think about conservatives claiming ‘Left-wing Democrats have been ******* on low-income Black folks for generations’?

What do you think about conservatives claiming Black Lives Matter act like Hitler Youth in the 1930’s ?

What do you think about conservatives saying that putting an end to corruption in police, judicial, wealth and politics well stopping bigotry, hatred, prejudice and Ignorance is waging war on White folks in America?

## approximation theory – Approximating Power Series Coefficients — Why Does a Clearly Illegitimate Method (Sometimes) Work So Well?

For reasons that don’t matter here,
I want to estimate the power series coefficients
$$t_{ij}$$ for the rational function
$$T(x,y)= {(1+x)(1+y)over 1- x y(2+x+y+x y)}=sum_{i,j} t_{ij}x^iy^j$$

Using a method that I cannot justify, I get
highly accurate estimates when $$i=j$$ and highly inaccurate estimates when
$$|i-j|$$ strays at all far from zero.

My questions are:

Q1) Why does my apparently illegitimate method work so well when $$i=j$$?

Q2) Why does the answer to Q1) not apply when $$ineq j$$ ?

(Of course, once the answer to Q1) is known, the answer to Q2) might be
self-evident.)

I’ll first present the method, then explain why I think it shouldn’t work,
then present the evidence that it works anyway when $$i=j$$, and then present
the evidence that it rapidly goes haywire when $$ineq j$$.

The Apparently Illegitimate Method:

Note that $$t_{ij}=t_{ji}$$, so we can limit ourselves to estimating
$$t_{j+k,j}$$ for $$kge 0$$.

I) Define
$$T_k(y)=sum_nt_{k+j,j}y^j$$
For example, a residue calculation gives

$$T_0(y)= {1-y-sqrt{1-4y+2y^2+y^4}over ysqrt{1-4y+2y^2+y^4}}$$

It turns out that all of the $$T_k$$ share a branch point at $$zetaapprox .2956$$ and are analytic in the disc $$r.

II) Write
$$L_k=lim_{kmapsto zeta} T_k(y)sqrt{y-zeta}$$.
Discover that $$L_0approx 1.44641$$ and $$L_k=L_0zeta^{k/2}$$.

III) Approximate
$$T_k(y)approx L_k/sqrt{y-zeta}$$

IV) Expand the right hand side in a power series around $$y=0$$ and equate
coefficients to get
$$t_{ij}approx pm{L_0oversqrt{zeta}}pmatrix{-1/2cr jcr}zeta^{-(i+j)/2} approx 2.66036 pmatrix{-1/2cr jcr}zeta^{-(i+j)/2}qquad(E1)$$

Remarks:

1. Obviously one could try to improve this approximation
at Step III by using more terms in the power series for $$T_k$$ at $$y=zeta$$.
This doesn’t seem to help, except when $$k=0$$, in which case the original approximation is already quite good.

2. For $$kge 2$$, $$T_k(y)$$ has a zero of
order $$k-1$$ at the origin. Thus one could modify this method by approximating
$$T_k(y)/(y^{k-1})$$ instead of $$T_k(y)$$
This yields
$$t_{ij}approx pm{2.66036}pmatrix{-1/2cr 1-i+2j}zeta^{-(i+j)/2}qquad(E2)$$
(E2) is (much) better than (E1) in the range $$ige 2j+1$$, where it gets
exactly the correct value, namely zero. Otherwise, it seems neither systematically better nor worse.

Why Nothing Like This Should Work: The expansion of $$T_k(y)$$ at
$$zeta$$ contains nonzero terms of the form
$$A_{i,j}(zeta-y)^j$$ for all positive integers $$j$$. (I’m writing $$i=j+k$$ to
match up with the earlier indexing.) The truncation at Step III throws all
these terms away. Therefore the expansion around the origin in Step IV
ignores (among other things) the contribution of $$A_{ij}$$ to the estimate
for $$t_{ij}$$. So unless we can control the sizes of the $$A_{ij}$$, we
have absolutely no control over the quality of the estimate.

And in fact, even when $$k=0$$, the $$A_{j,j}$$ are not small.
For example, $$t_{8,8}=8323$$ and my estimate for $$t_{8,8}$$ is a
respectable $$8962.52$$. But $$A_{8,8}$$, which should have contributed to that
estimate and got truncated away, is equal to $$58035$$. It seems remarkable
that I can throw away multiple terms of that size and have the effects nearly cancel.
I’d like a conceptual explanation for this.

But When $$i=j$$, It Works Anyway:

and these get even better if you truncate just slightly farther out.

Why any explanation can’t be too general:

## dnd 5e – For the purpose of the Detect Magic and Identify spells, is a magic item that is currently out of power still treated as a magic item?

On the basis that things do only what they say, a magical item remains magical unless there is a rule stating otherwise.

The rules call out several cases where magic items do lose their magic. Here’s a sampling (all citations from Dungeon Master’s Guide):

Once used, a consumable item loses its magic. (pg. 141)

Once it hits a target, the ammunition is no longer magical. (pg. 150)

Once an arrow of slaying deals its extra damage to a creature, it becomes a nonmagical arrow. (pg. 152)

Doing so ends that pellet’s magic. (pg. 166)

If a magic bead is removed from the necklace, that bead loses its magic. (pg. 182)

On a 1, the staff becomes a nonmagical quarterstaff. (pg. 201)

However, many items that can regain their abilities do not include this wording:

The bowl can’t be used this way again until the next dawn. (p.g 156)

The cube starts with 36 charges, and it regains 1d20 expended charges daily at dawn. (…) If the cube has insufficient charges remaining, nothing happens. (pg. 156–160)

On a 1, the staff retains its +2 bonus to attack and damage roll but loses all other properties. On a 20, the staff regains 1d8 + 2 charges. (pg. 202)

Many items also call out circumstances under which they are destroyed, in which case there is no longer an item to be magical.

It sounds like your mirror is a homebrew item, in which case the DM is welcome to add a rule stating that the item is nonmagical when without crystals, but this would be a specific exception, not a general rule.

## dnd 5e – For the Purpose of Detect Magic and Identify. Would a Magic item that ran out of power for the moment be considered a magic item?

If a magic item runs on “Magic Batteries” when the Item is out of power would it be considered a magic time for the purpose of the Identify and Detect Magic spell?

For example, I have a Mirror that shows through illusions, it has crystals around it that are destroyed as you used it, you can replace the crystals for more uses when it has no crystals, would it still be considered a magic item detectable by the spells?

Would the same work for items with charges that recharge at dawn? If the item has 0 charges and is not dawn yet, would it be still be considered a magic item?