dnd 5e – Can a short rope used with Rope Trick create a “safe space” during combat?

Though your idea sounds interesting and is plausible by the rules, tactically, I would highly suggest against it, as it causes more problems than it solves.

The wording of the spell states that, though you are invisible to everyone outside of the extra-dimensional space, the only way to truly hide would be to pull the rope into the space with you. However, revising the PHB, both pulling the rope up and dropping it would fall under “Using an Object” and would cost you an action each. Even if the DM is nice and considers it a bonus action, you’ll still be unable to do both within one move.

That would mean that you’ll be leaving behind a 7-foot tall pointer leading straight to you while alerting your enemies that you’re a high-priority target. This will surely result in attracting many melee enemies to the base of your rope as it will create a focal point for ranged attackers.

Note: This problem is also seen when players try to use illusionary spells like Mordenkainen’s Private Sanctum to avoid being targeted, but then jump in and out of it all the time… the enemy still knows where you are.

Having the rope exposed might not seem detrimental, but remember that your enemies have a certain level of intelligence, and won’t take long before choosing to encumber you. This opens up three Opportunity Attacks that your character will face:

  1. Ready is an action available to enemies as well as PCs, meaning you can face up to 24 melee attackers waiting for you to climb down (8 opponents with regular weapons and 16 with reach weapons) If each opponent chooses to use Ready, then the minute your feet hit the floor, you got a massacre of priority attacks coming your way.

  2. Ranged Ready. The same as before, but with ranged attacks, they can choose to hit you when you’re fully outside of the space, but still at the top of the rope. Failing a saving throw here would both cause falling damage and most likely prone as you need to refocus to get up.

  3. Even without ranged attacks, an enemy with enough reach can cut the rope short. Since the spell says nothing about the spell being broken if the rope is cut, all they would have to do is set a trap for when you fall, cut the rope and wait up to an hour. You’ll either try to get out or the spell will cancel and you’ll fall right into a pit of swords, a bear trap, or anything else they can come up with. Meanwhile, the bulk of the enemy can focus on wiping out your party, either slaughtering them or causing them to think you a coward for your cunning plan.

  4. All it takes are two melee fighters at the base of your rope and climbing would also cause Opportunity Attacks every time you leave.

All in all, to cast one spell will cost you many prioritized hits.

Reading the RAW, the way to leave the extra-dimensional space is to climb down. This means that unless you have enough room to utilize the rope, you’ll be stuck in there for an hour. I could be wrong, but since climb is the key word there, it defeats the purpose of the sanctum if you don’t use the rope as a failsafe passage. Though, if you found a way to creatively word your entering and exiting as climbing, you’re still faced with being a priority.

All in all, the one key problem I can see in your plan is in how enemies prioritize their targets:

Swords are troublesome. Flying things are more troublesome. Tricky things are most troublesome. Must work on tricky enemy first.

php – Woocommerce: display products with same short description

I’m trying to display products with same short description or even the description/content as related products. I’ve tried two ways but it doesn’t seem to work.

1st method

add_filter( 'woocommerce_related_products', 'cusfu_related_products_by_same_desc', 9999, 3 ); 

function cusfu_related_products_by_same_desc( $related_posts, $product_id, $args ) {
   $product = wc_get_product( $product_id );
   $shortdesc = $product->get_short_description();
   $related_posts = get_posts( array(
      'post_type' => 'product',
      'post_status' => 'publish',
      'short_description' => $shortdesc,
      'fields' => 'ids',
      'exclude' => array( $product_id ),
   return $related_posts;

2nd method

add_filter( 'woocommerce_related_products', 'cusfu_related_products_by_same_desc', 9999, 3 ); 
function cusfu_related_products_by_same_desc( $related_posts, $product_id, $args ) {
   $product = wc_get_product( $product_id );
   $shortdesc = $product->get_short_description();
   $related_posts = get_posts( array(
      'post_type' => 'product',
      'post_status' => 'publish',
      'meta_key' => 'short_description'
      'meta_value' => $shortdesc,
      'fields' => 'ids',
      'exclude' => array( $product_id ),
   return $related_posts;

Any help is appreciated.

coding standards – Is it possible to write very short production-ready programs?

To summarize my answer: this is a frame challenge. Rather than learn how to reduce arbitrary line count, it’s much better to simply not focus on line count, but only on readability and the restrictively scoped responsibilities that a microservice should represent.

Is it possible to write very short production-ready programs?

If you open up your question to such a generalization, the answer is immediately yes.

static void Main(string() args)
    Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");

That’s production ready.

Obviously, how quickly you can develop something to be production-ready very much depends on the complexity of the requirements. Displaying a hard-coded string message is arguably the lowest form of complexity, hence why we tend to use it as the default example.

Fred George, the father of micro-services suggests between 50 and 100 lines of code.

This could be done by “writing code” or “configuring tools” which both increase the number of SLOC.

Apples and oranges. I very much doubt that Fred George is talking about SLOC, but rather LOC (i.e. ignoring the complexity of any libraries used by the microservice.

Given the commonly agreed upon workload of a microservice (e.g. a simple REST API to fetch database entries), if you count all lines of source code including the library dependencies, you are in no way going to be able to write an application in under 100 lines.

my simplest meaningful programs which saw production were about 200 SLOC and were exceptionally simple. They only focused on one specific task and served as a tool for other programs to use.

Initially, this was the intention of microservices. It arguably still is, but we’ve slightly relaxed the constraints on how micro a microservice needs to be.

This is a matter of real world compromise. It may be elegant to keep your microservices incredibly tiny, but in reality a lot of companies are going to stop shrinking their microservices at an earlier stage, leading to slightly bigger microservices being built.

Have you ever seen a picture of a concept car? They are wild, mindblowingly innovative, have funky shapes, and make a very clear artistic statement. But the cars that get built from that concept are much plainer looking.
This is because the theoretical concept can explore wildly different things, but actual cars still have to deal with compromises, such as ride comfort, trunk space, back seat, road legality, …

The same happens for any theory before it is put into practice. Theories can be radical, but their implementation generally dulls them down to make it easier to implement.

Fred George drew a very radical line on how strongly we should minimize microservices, but that doesn’t really work well for a lot of companies whose codebase is, let’s face it, bulkier than any theoretical example tends to be. Therefore, compromises have to be made, and in this case this means allowing for a larger line count, while still respecting the original intention of microservices (i.e. a strongly restricted scope of responsibility per microservice)

two week bootcamp (which involved writing a relatively sophisticated application in just 22 lines of ruby)

I don’t know the specific exercise or its source code, but it does seem valid to put a very big asterisk here, based on how you’ve based your question:

More often than not, line count is the opponent of readability. The fewer lines there are in an application, while retaining the same features), the denser the features are spread across those lines. That’s just simple logic. If you’re carrying 20 eggs, the more baskets you have, the less eggs there are in each basket.

“a relatively sophisticated application in just 22 lines” raises a red flag for me. Sophisticated tends to mean complex (i.e. involving many bits and bobs, not necessarily difficult), which tends to warrant an increased line count to keep things readable.

Like I said, I can’t judge this particular example since I don’t know exactly how complex it is. But your question seems to tie together the concepts of counting lines, being production-ready, and good practice development.

In every common sense scenario, line count should simply not be observed. By common sense, I mean to exclude cases where you’re just willfully generating more code without adding further value, e.g. FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition is a great (though intentionally satirical) example of this.

What seems to be much more relevant, is the responsibility of the microservice, i.e. exactly the service that it provides to outside consumers. This responsibility should be kept to a logical minimum.

What is a logical minimum? Well, that’s arguable. Does a query to fetch all users and a query to fetch a specific user really represent the same responsibility?

Reading Fred George’s opinion on microservices, I cannot help but infer that he would attempt to separate the two as they service a subtly different purpose. However, in commonly agreed upon good practice, it’s well reasonable to have a “user microservice” which allows querying the users in multiple ways, including the two queries I mentioned before.

Am I missing some programming techniques? Could I see example programs which were used in production environment and are less than 100 SLOC?

Any technique that would reduce line count for any application, no matter the context or scope of responsibility, is effectively going to be an exercise in reducing readability.

When applied to such an extent, you effectively set code golf standards. I’m linking to the code golf community to give you an idea on both (a) how much one could actually decrease line/character count if they wanted to and (b) how dramatically it impact the readability and maintainability of the golfed code.

Your question is so broad that it is effectively no longer meaningfully answerable. You’re asking for a LOC-panacea. If it were to exist, and it would somehow be a good idea to do so, then we would all be doing it already.

This is a frame challenge. Rather than learn how to reduce arbitrary line count, it’s much better to simply not focus on line count, but only on readability and the restrictively scoped responsibilities that a microservice should represent.

dnd 5e – How can I handle attunement for timebounded adventures that might not have short rests?

I will be running Strahd Must Die Tonight!, a timed, one-shot adventure for D&D 5e. In previous games of it, due to the real and in-game time constraints and lack of short rests, I have handwaved attunement and allowed attunement to magic items just before the finale.

Are there any rules that speed up attunement that should be considered? Are there any mechanics of attunement to take into account for one-shots? Are there any compelling reasons not to allow players attune to items pivotal to the game?

website design – UX Case study that cover 1.5 year is it fine or better to divide into the short parts?

I’m writing a case study for work that I’ve done in my current company at 1.5 years. All case studies that I saw describe a specific feature or first launch, so timelines there always 2-5 weeks. And I’m wondering is it okay to write a case study that will cover High-level Goals that we get to in a 1.5 year?

deBanked Releases The Rise and Fall of Peer to Peer Lending, a Short Documentary – Seekingfin

Rise and Fall of Peer to Peer LendingOctober 30, 2020 – deBanked® has released a short 7-minute documentary on the rise and fall of peer to peer lending. The video, which puts a strong focus on the journey of Lending Club and its rival Prosper, was produced to mark the end of an era. Lending Club, for example, announced it was terminating its retail investor note platform this year.

The story is told largely through the personal experience of deBanked chief editor and president Sean Murray, who says he made his first small investment on a peer to peer lending platform in January 2014.

“Does peer to peer lending still exist in the United States? Kind of,” said Murray. “But the golden age of it is long gone.”

Murray bases his experience on personally acquiring more than $100,000 of peer-to-peer lending notes over several years, writing extensively on the subject, and also from having attended more than a dozen business conferences related to the phenomenon.

“We made this video short on purpose,” Murray said. “There’s so much to tell but we wanted to keep it simple.”

The video can be watched free at https://debanked.com/tv/.

About deBanked
deBanked® is a registered trademark of Raharney Capital, LLC. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York and was founded in 2010. For more information, visit https://debanked.com or email info@debanked.com.

short connections – Connecting flight at IAD Dulles with stroller

I am really hoping there’s someone out there who will ease my anxiety about this airport. I already called and emailed them, I searched online but I still feel like I dont have the right answer.

I am flying alone with my 14 month old son and will have a stroller (makes things harder, slower and will have to avoid escalators). We are flying from SAV and will arrive to terminal D. We have about an hour to get to terminal B for our flight to Europe. When I look at the navigation, it shows it would take us about 30mins.

Now my questions are – how often do the buses run? Are they stroller friendly? Does it accommodate a lot of people or is there a chance we might have to wait for the next one? Are there elevators by escalators?

I want to make a vlog. I have tried to take some photos and short videos. Is there any good ideas to make a fantastic video?

I want to make a vlog. I have tried to take some photos and short videos. Is there any good ideas to make a fantastic video?
What software or tools do I need?
Which skills should I learn?
I want to edit video as soon as possible.

plotting – How to compile the following code in short span?

The following code compiles soon for small values of n (n=2) but when n=10 in such cases it takes much time. For n=10 case even after 7 hours i did not get output. So could anyone please help me to solve this issue.

Thank you

a = 1;
(Alpha) = 3/4;
n = 10;
h = a/n;
Subscript(t, 0) = 0;
Subscript(f, 1)(t_) := (Exp(t)*Sin(t)) + (Exp(t)*Cos(t));
Subscript(f, 2)(r_) := -(Exp(r)*Sin(r)) + (Exp(r)*Cos(r));
x(Subscript(t, 0)) = 0;
y(Subscript(t, 0)) = 1;
Subscript(t, 0) = 0;
Subscript(d, 1) = 0;
Subscript(d, 2) = 1;
Subscript(g, 1)(c_, d_) := (Exp(c)*Sin(c)) + (Exp(d)*Cos(d));
Subscript(g, 2)(q_, w_) := -(Exp(q)*Sin(q)) + (Exp(w)*Cos(w));
For(j = 1, j <= n, j++, Subscript(t, j) = (j*h);
 Subscript(e, 1) = 
  x(Subscript(t, j - 1)) + 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 1) Subscript(f, 1)(Subscript(t, j - 1));
 Subscript(v, 1) = 
  y(Subscript(t, j - 1)) + 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 1) Subscript(f, 2)(Subscript(t, j - 1));
 x(Subscript(t, j)) = 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 
      2) ((j - 1)^((Alpha) + 1) - (j - (Alpha) - 
         1) j^((Alpha))) Subscript(f, 1)(Subscript(t, 0)) + 
   Subscript(d, 1) + 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 
      2) Sum(((j - k + 1)^((Alpha) + 
           1) - (2*(j - k)^((Alpha) + 1)) + ((j - k - 1)^((Alpha) + 
            1))) Subscript(f, 1)(Subscript(t, k)), {k, 1, j - 1}) + 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 2) Subscript(g, 1)(Subscript(e, 1), Subscript(v, 
 y(Subscript(t, j)) = 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 
      2) ((j - 1)^((Alpha) + 1) - (j - (Alpha) - 
         1) j^((Alpha))) Subscript(f, 2)(Subscript(t, 0)) + 
   Subscript(d, 2) + 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 
      2) Sum(((j - k + 1)^((Alpha) + 
           1) - (2*(j - k)^((Alpha) + 1)) + ((j - k - 1)^((Alpha) + 
            1))) Subscript(f, 2)(Subscript(t, k)), {k, 1, j - 1}) + 
    Gamma((Alpha) + 2) Subscript(g, 2)(Subscript(e, 1), Subscript(v, 
ListPlot(Table({Subscript(t, j), x(Subscript(t, j))}, {j, n}))

short connections – Is a visa needed during a luggage-free transfer at Stansted (London, UK)

As to the visa part of the question:

This UK govt site is a self-check for UK visas. Entering your friend’s info (citizen of Ukraine, coming to the UK on her way to somewhere else, and presuming the Stansted > Bulgaria flight departs from Stansted on the same calendar day as her arrival at Stansted and she will not leave the Stansted terminal) returns she does need a UK visa. (The web q-and-a can be misleading, however, as it does not list the particular case of an airport like Stanstead without airside transit facilities: at Stanstead, every arriving passenger from a non-UK flight will pass through UK Border Control at Stanstead.)

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) maintains a database of travel information, which is almost invariably checked by airlines before a boarding pass is issued. This is because if a passenger is refused at a transit point or destination, the airline must return the passenger to their departure point, and may be fined as well. The IATA Travel Center returns a finding that your friend will indeed need a visa unless she transits the UK at Heathrow or Gatwick (or somewhere else in the UK that isn’t Stansted; I closed the window before noting it further).

When your friend goes to the airport in Ukraine to board her flight to Stansted, before allowing her to board the flight, Ryanair will check to make sure she can enter the UK. The IATA database says she cannot, and Ryanair will not permit her to board the flight to Stanstead.

Given this uncertainty and the serious problems that will occur if things go wrong, you and your friend should consider the comment of @jcaron — with which I agree — that another itinerary would be a lot easier, a lot shorter, and probably worth the increased cost.

The safest course of action is to either a) have your friend get a UK visa before she attempts to fly this itinerary, or b) choose another itinerary that avoids the issue.

If she does take this flight, when she approaches UK Immigration at Stansted, she should be prepared to show evidence of her next flight from the UK to Bulgaria.

This answer is only partial, as it does not address the Covid-19 issues raised by this international itinerary.