customization – Assistance with plugin choice for Driving School Booking System

Driving School Website | Scenario
I’m building a Driving School Website for a client where their customers can log in to their personal accounts and make bookings for their appointments (which are limited to 10 hrs worth of lessons which can be either 1hr/2hr sessions).
I also might want to implement a payment system where customers can buy the 10 lessons package and immediately after the purchase get their auto-generated log-in details. Also, they should be able to buy additional lessons and then the original 10hr limit should increase.

Plugin Assistance
Which plugins should I use?
I did quite a lot of research on booking systems but can’t really find anything for this project. I saw something about LMS’s but not sure if that fits this project.

Thanks for the help in advance.

domain name system – Access URL in CompanyA from CompanyB with Two Way Transitive Trust and DNS

CompanyAWebsite isn’t an FQDN. It’s a single label name. It can’t be resolved by the CompanyB DNS servers because by default CompanyB DNS clients will append their own DNS suffix to the query and the CompanyB DNS servers will return NXDOMAIN because no such record exists in the CompanyB DNS zone. It can’t be forwarded to the CompanyA DNS servers because it’s not an FQDN in the CompanyA DNS zone.

The easiest solution is to create a DNS zone in the CompanyB DNS servers named and add a “same as parent” A record with the ip address of the website.

As an alternative to the above, you could add to your DNS suffix search list in CompanyB, but I probably wouldn’t go that route myself.

mongodb – DB Design: Tutor booking system


The system should allow users (tutors in this case) to add their own availability time slots. For example, a tutor says that s/he is available this specific week on Thursday from 5.30pm to 6.30pm, then from 8pm to 9pm. For simplicity, the duration of the availability == the duration of the session that may or may not be booked by a tutee.

Each tutor is assigned to specific courses and the tutor’s availability should show for all the classes s/he is assigned to.

Tutors also have access to their calendars where they see all the availability they have added for a specific week, and can either delete or modify some, and of course add new ones.

The application is small to medium.


When a tutee navigates to a course page, s/he looks at all available tutors and their corresponding time slots, chooses the suitable timeslot, provides some details about the session (specific chapter, etc.), then submit his/her request. On server-side, a session is created according to the timeslot, and the timeslot is flagged as booked.


I am using MongoDB + mongoose. This is what I have so far:

const course = new mongoose.Schema({
  tutors: ({ type: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'User' }),
  title: String,
  description: String,

const availability = new mongoose.Schema({
  user: { type: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'User' },
  booked: Boolean,
  startTime: Date,
  endTime: Date

There are some corner cases that made me wonder whether I’m on the right track or not. For example, if a tutee books a session based on a specific availability, that availability is flagged as booked. All it takes for the tutor to appear available again is for him/her to delete the availability, then add a new one again at the same time. We would end up with 2 sessions taking place at the same time, which is not accepted. Of course I can add a unique index on the start and end times, but overlapping sessions/availability are also a problem.

What do you think about this design? Do you see any potential limitations/problems with this design? Is there anything you would do differently? Do those corner cases stem from a bad design, or there isn’t much that can be done for that other than application level checking?

I tried looking for similar problems but couldn’t really make strong correlations between my case and the generic hotel/room/booking reservation systems.

Thank you.

About Blue Screen of Windows System after starting Mathematica 12.2/12.1 Win10

I found a way to solve the problem. Windows 10 KB5000802 Security Update is the culprit and it needs to be uninstalled. Then mathematica can work normally.

But there is a problem, Win10 will automatically update which is very annoying, because it will install KB5000802 Security Update again and Blue Screen will happen again. So you should disable automatic updates in Win10, then mathematica will work again, but that means your computer will never have a security update, So you have to make a trade-off.

One thing needs to be mentioned more, I found out that my colleague’s computer also has version 12.1 installed, also has Win10 KB5000802 Security Update installed, but his compouter can run mathematica normally. And my computer is not even if the computer system is reinstalled. This is a metaphysical thing and I don’t know why.

Operations for uninstalling security updates and disabling system updates are readily available online, you can find them everywhere. Hope the above description can help those who encounter this problem.

KB5000802 is also a culprit for the failure of some printers to print, that’s the problem I had before, if you hit the print button and the printer didn’t respond, this could be the reason.

unity – How to go back to the old input system?

I have tried using Unity’s new input system, but it’s incredibly hard to learn, the documentation is poor, and the old system is much easier to work with. I would like to revert my project back to the old system, but I am unsure how to do that. How do i disable the package and reconfigure my project so it will accept code using the old system?

system agnostic – As an unreliable player, how can I lessen the burden on my group?

To the Player

My advice to the “unreliable player” is multi-fold…

First, and foremost: communicate with your group and GM about it.

Second, make certain that a copy of your character remains with the group – either a reliable player, an online copy, or a photocopy.

Third, don’t play a character integral to any major plot developments. Be the best supporting actor, but not a lead.

Fourth, pick someone to run your character for you when you can’t. This may or may not be the guy who brings your sheet to game, too…

In a particular Hero System campaign of a friend of mine, one player bought a “teleport, no conscious control, once per session” to explain his sudden disappearances from the campaign… and his reappearances. It meant that the GM had a way to bring him into or out of the session, as needed.

Advice to the group

Now, some genres are better than others for this, and some play styles are better for this as well, but see if the group is willing to play more episodically than contiguously. Likewise, more mission-based games tend to be better than cohesive self-motivated party type games.

A Trek-style or SG-1 style game is better for missing player type groups than is a Farscape, Starhunter, or Firefly type game, for example. Trek and SG-1, a missing player can be replaced with an NPC or guest player much more easily than where there is a very limited cast, and anyone missing is both noticed and unreplaced. For Fantasy, being minor landholders doing missions for your liege (ala Pendragon) is better than trying to emulate a long hero’s journey.

hello ppd system question upload-4ever

Can I open 2 accounts?
or 3 account .

Is there a problem? If I open an account, do I place a ban?

I built a custom .NET Core distributed system with Docker, React, Consul and RabbitMQ. Would anyone


y u no do it?

Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

system agnostic – How can you find a balance between effective/optimised characters and creative characters?

Everyone is responsible for the overall health of the game

That means everyone is responsible for finding a place for themselves and their characters within the game. If the game is focused overcoming an extremely challenging tactical position and saving the world despite the massive resources and power of your opponents, then it may be that a certain amount of power is mandatory for a character to participate. And if that’s the case, then it is the individual responsibility of every participant to ensure that they come to the table with a character that fits within that game.

Likewise, if a game is focused on the social interactions of the characters within the society of the town, and violence is all-but-verboten as a solution to problems, then it may be mandatory for every character to have a deep enough background, with fleshed-out social connections to the town, in order to play. It becomes every player’s responsibility to come to the table with such a character.

Characters from the first game won’t fly in the second game, and vice versa. A character with no backstory and whose only notable feature is the ability to one-shot-kill a god might be entirely appropriate for the first, but utterly inappropriate for the second. That character would, most likely, be rejected by that society and thus unable to participate. A character with tons of influence and social standing, but with no survival skills or combat ability, sounds like a perfect fit for the second, but would not be appropriate in the first. That character would be one of the people the first group are trying to protect, and would be left behind in whatever safety is available, and would not be able to participate.

No one has a right to play whatever character they want, the expectations of the game and table be damned. It is every player’s responsibility to come to the table with something that fits the game.

The problem comes when you have games that aren’t as clear-cut as my two examples—and you have people at the table disagreeing about what sort of game it is. When you have an epic quest to save the world, making friends along the way, one player might see this as closer to the first game, while another might see it as closer to the second. This doesn’t have to be a problem, of course—the really important thing is that everyone enjoys the game, so as long as everyone gets an appropriate amount of time in the spotlight, and there are situations where both players’ characters can shine, there isn’t a problem.

So in the end, it becomes a question of what kind of game does everyone want to play, or think they are playing? Is everyone on the same page? If not, is the DM comfortable catering to both as appropriate, and is everyone comfortable with there being segments of the game that perhaps interest them less or interact with their character less?

If you want to play a lower-power character, are you accepting that you are lower-power, and so will have less opportunities to shine in hard mechanical situations? Or are you demanding that everyone else get to the same place as you, just so you can play the character you want? The former is fair and reasonable; the latter is not.

If you want to play a higher-power character, are you accepting that you are higher-power, and the game will have segments where that does not matter and that will highlight what the other characters have going on? Or do you want your optimization to mean you “win” and get to have the spotlight on you all of the time? The former is fair and reasonable; the latter is not.

In the specific case of you wanting to play a lower-power character, and other players objecting to the character on the grounds that it is too weak, that needs to be the discussion that you are having: is this a game that mandates higher-power than your character is offering? And if the other players think it is, why do they think that—what are they concerned about losing if the game is tweaked to allow your character to participate? Note that there are valid concerns that might exist here. It’s not the case that they are simply wrong—it might be, but it also might not be. You have to be open to that, because you have a responsibility to engage with the premise of the game and this is part of it.

  • Other players might—reasonably—point out that their characters couldn’t, in good conscience, bring someone as vulnerable as your character along on their quest.
  • Alternatively, they may simply be interested in greater mechanical challenges, and be worried that the presence of a lower-power character will require the DM to water down the challenges, or force one of the higher-power characters to “babysit” the lower-power character.
  • If the game has a “master” player, who is responsible for the challenges the party faces, that player may well object to the simple power disparity as making their job too difficult.

And so on. You can discuss these, determine if these—or others—are concerns that the other players have, and then determine whether or not those concerns are valid in the particular case of the game you are all seeking to play. If they are valid, you can consider how they could be remedied—whether it means a different character, or tweaks to the system to allow the same character to move upward on that graph you have, or whatever else.

But nobody has a “right” to play. This is a voluntary, cooperative activity for fun—your ability to participate is entirely predicated on the voluntary cooperation of those you would play with. You can’t make them play something they don’t want to play; they can’t make you play something you don’t want to play. The only way anyone gets to play is if everyone gets along and agrees to play—and agrees to play the same game. That’s all it really comes down to.