rule Archives - New and Fresh Private + Public Proxies Lists Everyday!

Does the rule planner react to the last comment?

To my knowledge, nothing in the rules "overwrite existing planned actions(As in your question.) However, every time you attempt to properly delete an already scheduled rule, before you schedule a new rule, you get a similar result, and that attempt is simply ignored if it is not done. There was no planned rule Read more for more details …

See my response to "Rule to remember the date of the last user's message and the 30-day recall based on a scheduled rule" for an illustration of the deletion of scheduled tasks, using the "schedule_deleteAs explained in this answer: schedule_delete this is part of this rule is to ensure that previously "scheduled" reminders will be deleted when updating the data field (so that it only triggers a callback and with the most recent date).

For this to work (that you actually indicate the exact scheduled task to delete), you must specify a "identifier", as "(account:name)In my example, to understand how I know what in my case is the identifier of the task to delete, look at the way I've specified the (new) task to create that you want create: this is "identifier" : "(account:name)", which is what I used as an identifier for scheduling a task.

In your case, I think using the node's ID as part of the identifier would be a very good choice for such an identifier.

Applying rule rules

So I tried to take a total derivative, with constants, but the output then had Dt […, Constants -> …] output. I tried using a rule to remove it from the output, but it did not work. See below. What am I doing wrong?

Dt[a x^2 + b y, x, Constants -> {a, b}]
Dt[a x^2 + b y, x, Constants -> {a, b}] /.{ Constants -> {a, b}} -> Null

comparison of editions – What are the main rule differences between zweihander and wfrp 4th?

Since these two sets of rules were inspired by wfrp 2e and have come out recently, how do they compare?

From what I understand, they both strongly use the d10 and have dark settings. They both use professions for leveling their character and skills.

Resolution of basic trigonometric value using a quadrant rule or summation formula

Basically, I'm bad at math, very hard at getting point 70. I'm now trying to learn trigonometry, from the basics.
I practice to find the value of $$ sin (135 ^ circ) $$ using my knowledge on $ sin (45 ^ circ) = { sqrt2 over2} $, $ cos (45 ^ circ) = { sqrt2 over 2} $, $ sin (90 ^ circ) = $ 1, $ cos (90 ^ circ) = $ 0, the rule of the quadrant and the formula of the angle of sums. I hope the expert can help me correct and give advice.

Using the quadrant rule:
Since $ 135 ^ circ $ in the second quadrant, the sinusoidal sign is positive

Using the sum formula of sin:
$$ sin (135 ^ circ) = sin (90 ^ circ + 45 ^ circ) $$
$$ = sin (90 ^ circ) × cos (45 ^ circ) + cos (90 ^ circ) × sin (45 ^ circ) $$
$$ = 1 × cos (45 ^ circ) + 0 × sin (45 ^ circ) $$
$$ = cos (45 ^ circ) + 0 $$
$$ = cos (45 ^ circ) $$
$$ = { sqrt2 over2} $$
For your information, I am only a professor of economics in the second semester and my tutor gives us a calculation that contains trigonometry. I need to learn this because 2 weeks ago I had the calculus examination. Thank you for your support, your advice and your explanations.

Is my practice correct? Can I have a simple way to remember the sum formula of sine and cosine? What a suitable practice for me after practicing with $ 135 ^ circ $ ?

Why does a certain replacement rule not succeed?

I've tried to apply the rule of replacement

/. Sqrt(-(-1 + 2 l3) (2 - l3 + 2 Sqrt(1 - l3 - 2 l3^2))) -> (1 - 
2 l3 + Sqrt(1 - l3 - 2 l3^2))

on certain quantities of terms (some of which have Sqrt (- (- 1 + 2 l3) (2 – l3 + 2 Sqrt (1 – 13 – 2 l3 ^ 2)))) and others not.

But that does not seem to "take".

visas – Specification of the 90-day Schengen rule – Specific question

I would really appreciate the help of some colleagues here.

I believe that some immigration officers misused the 90/180 day law to reject my wife's visa application for a family immigration application.

They declared that he had only a few days left when we submitted the application on March 22, 2019 – 22/03/2019

However, they rely on the fact that she stayed four days earlier, in January. However, when she left the control of immigration in the country at that time. They only told her that she had to be careful because there could be consequences, but that they would not take action this time because it is minor.

The lady to whom we addressed our request confirmed that she had stayed in Norway for 88 days before handing it over on 22.03.2019 – which was correct with my calculations. However, 7 months later, we obtained the visa refusal on the basis of the assessment that my wife was in the country illegally (nowadays) when we submitted the application on 22.03.2019 – for me, it looked like the old lady who had done it. the assessment is still hanging on some of the old rules. Before the change of October 2013 (October 18)

90 days in a period of 180 days, which means that the number of moving days is constant.
Denial indicates that & # 39; & # 39; XXX person extended her stay between 04-01-2019 (January 4th) and 08-01-2019, which means that she remained illegal when handing over her documents.

But how are those of January, in relation to his presence there on March 22?

We counted 88 days of stay from March 22 to September 20 (180 days) – as the police officer.

We have not sent a complaint with a good written statement, but I would like to know your opinion.

Am I wrong in thinking that a legal stay is calculated from the date on which you want to go to the Schengen area countries, then minus this date 180, and determine your stay between these two dates. If that ends for example 84, it means that you can legally stay in Norway for 6 days. (Or even more, as the period changes again while the person stays there)

Fa.functional analysis – optimization of an integral function when the multiplier rule does not provide any useful information

Let

$ (E, mathcal E, lambda) $ to be a measurement space
$ mu ll lambda $ to be a measure of probability on $ (E, mathcal E) $
$ p in (1, infty) $
$ k in mathbb N $
$ f: E times mathbb R ^ k times mathbb R ^ k to (0, infty) $ such as $ f (; cdot ; v, w) $ is $ mathcal E $-measurable for all $ v, w in mathbb R ^ k $, $$ F (w): = int lambda ^ { otimes2} ({ rmd} (x, y)) f (x, w (x), w (y)) ; ; ; text {for} w in {L ^ p ( mu)} ^ k $$ and $$ G (w): = sum_ {i = 1} ^ kw_i-1 ; ; ; text {for} w in {L ^ p ( mu)} ^ k $$
$ S: = left {w in {L ^ p ( mu)} ^ k: G (w) = 0 right $

How can we proceed if we want to maximize $ F $ more than $ S $?

I am aware of the necessary conditions given by the multiplier rules (for example, Theorem 10.4 in Clarke's book). However, in the particular situation I am interested in, this condition does not provide any useful information about the maximizer. What can we do in such a situation? I am particularly interested in the Hilbert Space case $ p = $ 2.

virtual machines – Azure Inbound Rule Order

I've disabled the firewall on my Azure account and my computer for testing purposes. Therefore, no firewall rule is blocking my connection. However, I still can not connect to my Azure VM via RDP.

I can SSH in the VM, so this allows remote connections to at least one level.

I have defined the incoming rules as follows:

113 / Port_3389 / 3389 / Any / Any / Any / Allow

65500 / DenyAllInBound / Any / Any / Any / Any / Deny

The latter is a default rule that I can not edit because it is a default rule. So, RDP port 3389 is configured to allow, with higher priority, why does the DenyAllInBound rule block RDP connections? I've checked with IP Flow that the DenyAllInBound rule is blocking my connection.

What do I miss?

quantum mechanics – What is the status of the birth rule in the management of axiomatic quality?

While physicists have tried several times and have failed to derive the birth rule (for example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0409144.pdf). I wondered what axiomatic quantum mechanics had to say about it? Is it fundamentally impossible to derive the rule born or is there hope?

Here is a great discussion link in the same spirit:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10533&cpage=1

I think Lubos Motl was of the view of the measure which should constitute a separate fundamental axiom. If so, do I imagine that it becomes difficult to demonstrate that there is no non-redundant axiom when the born rule is included?
https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/09/woit-and-probability-in-quantum.html

Tag: rule