Hi i have a ps4 slim it is not connect to the controller i have tried with 5 different controllers and the orange light comes and it does not connect. I have tried the hold the power off button till it beeps twice and unplug it and turn it on method to no luck. When putting it into safe mode the controller does work but when i restart it it doesn’t work. I factory wiped it in safe mode incase it would fix it and it did nothing and now its stuck on the connect dual shock 4 screen with the PlayStation big mistake as i could have used a keyboard before. I need help asap as i will end up selling the console as spares and feel like its a easy fix.i have tried everything reset controller, different methods, different controller, different charging cables. Please help, Thanks
I was playing my PS4 two days ago and then packed it up with two controllers that were both connected to this PS4.   I got to where I was going, set everything up and now the controllers won't connect. They show pulsing orange when they plug in, but when I hit the PS Button to connect, it blinks white 1-2 times and goes back to orange.   I have tried resetting them both.  Can anyone help?
For a given inner product space $V$, I would like to prove the inequality $$\|\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}\|^2 + \|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\|^2 = 2(\|\mathbf{x}\|^2 + \|\mathbf{y}\|^2).$$  We see that $$\|\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}\|^2 + \|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\|^2 = \langle\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}\rangle + \langle\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\rangle,$$  which by linearity $$=\langle\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}\rangle + \langle\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}\rangle + \langle\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\rangle - \langle\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\rangle.$$  I've been trying to figure out how to go about this proof using linearity in the second argument of an inner product, but my textbook does not say that linearity necessarily holds in the second component. If it does, how would I go about the rest of this proof? If not, should I be potentially using some aspect of conjugate symmetry to prove this statement? Should covariates that are not statistically significant be 'kept in' when creating a model? I have several covariates in my calculation for a model, and not all of them are statistically significant.  Should I remove those that are not?  This question discusses the phenomenon, but does not answer my question:   There is nothing in the answer to that question that suggests that non-significant covariates be taken out, though, so right now I am inclined to believe that they should stay in.  Before even reading that answer, I was thinking the same since a covariate can still explain some of the variance (and thus help the model) without necessarily explaining an amount beyond some threshold (the significance threshold, which I see as not applicable to covariates).  There is another question somewhere on CV for which the answer seems to imply that covariates should be kept in regardless of significance, but it is not clear on that.  (I want to link to that question, but I was not able to track it down again just now.)  So...   Should covariates that do not show as statistically significant be kept in the calculation for the model?  (I have edited this question to clarify that covariates are never in the model output by the calculation anyway.)  To add complication, what if the covariates are statistically significant for some subsets of the data (subsets which have to be processed separately).  I would default to keeping such a covariate, otherwise either different models would have to be used or you would have a statistically significant covariate missing in one of the cases.  If you also have an answer for this split case, though, please mention it. Publicity badges might be taking internal links into account? My understanding of the Stern–Gerlach experiment is that neutral (0 total charge) particles are sent through a non-homogeneous magnetic field, with the expectation that the field will push that particle's path higher or lower on a detector because of the collective spin of that particle. While the detector can detect particles in a two-dimensional surface, the results of the experiment are that particles appear in only two localized areas directly above the path of the particle stream, or directly below the path of the particle stream - spin up or spin down. The conclusions from these measurements are that the particle, when measured, will always have about the same magnitude.  Why does this not follow from classical mechanical theory related to magnetism? If you shot a magnet through a similar apparatus, I would expect the magnet to be rotated to align with the magnetic field in some way which, at high enough field strengths relative to the mass of the magnet, would cause us to measure basically the same magnitude as if the magnet entered the apparatus pre-aligned with the field.  How is my explanation incorrect? Does there exist an automorphism of $\mathbb{C}$ that does not keep $\mathbb{R}$ fixed? Some spells, such as Forbiddance, say that under certain circumstances, they last "Until Dispelled".  Other spells, such as Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, say that under certain circumstances, they become "Permanent".  What is the difference between these two terms?  Does "Permanent" mean that the effect can never be dispelled? This is regards to the lorentz invariance of a classical scalar field theory. We assume that the action which is $S= \int d^4 x \mathcal{L}$, is invariant under a Lorentz transformation. How do you prove that the integration measure $d^4 x$ is Lorentz invariant. I am trying to create a stacked bar chart above a table, basically identical to the one below.    I have found similar posts such as:   However, my experience is very limited to simple tables and I am struggling to modify this to suit my needs.  Any ideas on how I can achieve such a graph?  Thanks! Directory-tree listing in Python Filling between two listplots The following question is taken from Royden's Real Analysis $4$th edition, Chapter $3,$ question $28,$ page $67:$     Question: Show that Egoroff's Theorem continues to hold if the convergence is pointwise a.e. and $f$ is finite a.e., that is.       Assume $E$ has finite measure. Let $\{f_n\}$ be a sequence of measurable functions on $E$ that converges pointwise almost everywhere on $E$ to the real-valued function $f$ which is finite almost everywhere. Then for each $\varepsilon&gt;0,$ there is a closed set $F$ contained in $E$ for which    $$\{f_n\}\to f \text{ uniformly on }F \text{ and }m(E\setminus F)&lt;\varepsilon.$$   My attempt:   Let $A = \{ x\in E: f_n\not\to f \text{ pointwise} \}$ and $B=\{ x\in E: |f|=\infty \}.$  By assumption,  $$m(A)=m(B)=0.$$ So $A$ and $B$ are measurable.  Note that  $$m[E\setminus (A\cup B)] = m(E) - m(A\cup B) = m(E).$$ Fix $\varepsilon&gt;0.$ Since $\{f_n\}$ converges to $f$ pointwise on $E\setminus (A\cup B)$ to the real-valued function $f,$ by Egoroff's Theorem, there exists a closed set $F$ contained in $(E\setminus (A\cup B))\subseteq E$ for which  $$f_n\to f \text{ uniformly on } F \text{ and }m[(E\setminus(A\cup B)) \setminus F] &lt; \varepsilon.$$ Since $E$ has finite measure and $F\subseteq E,$ by monotonicity,  $F$ has finite measure. As $F$ is closed, it is also measurable.  Therefore, by Excision property, we have $$m(E\setminus F) = m(E) - m(F) = m[E\setminus(A\cup B)] - m(F) = m[(E\setminus(A\cup B)) \setminus F]&lt;\varepsilon.$$  Is my proof correct? I ask for verification because in this  Kenny's comment about countable union of null sets. I do not use this anywhere in my proof. So I wonder whether my proof miss out something. Is there any way to accept only numeric values in a JTextField? Sorting hashmap based on keys I have a psd that has rounded rectangle. I need to create a new rounded rectangle with the same radius. How do I determine the radius used on that said rounded rectangle?   I feel like this is such an awful question but thanks in advance for answering. How to mount PCIe SSD from MacBook Air in another computer I got this SSD out of an Apple laptop that's broken from liquid damage.  What is this connection called and how do I mount this storage device to retrieve data from it? It looks like PCIe. Does Apple sell a part to mount this via USB adapter or something? I know cell phone cameras are the lowest rung, but when reading reviews of phones, the reviewers always have sample shots that are much better than what I can manage.  What are some ways to take decent shots with a cell phone camera?  (I'm thinking of the higher end Android or iPhone cameras). Radical of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ I find it intuitive enough that the radical of $\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F$ is the scalar matrices, but I have trouble finding an easy, but complete proof:  Proof. Let $\mathfrak s$ denote the scalar matrices. Clearly $\mathfrak s\subset\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$. Suppose that $\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$ is generated by more than one element, so that $X\in\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$, but $X\notin\mathfrak s$. We can change basis such that $\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$ is upper-triangular. (The change of basis leaves the scalar matrices invariant.) Then $X$ is upper-triangular.  I want to conclude that there exists a $Y\in\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F$ s.t. $[X,Y]$ is not upper-triangular. How can I see that $Y$ always exists, except by waving hands? Is it possible to sort non-stackable items in minecraft? are super sweet.  But, I have a skeleton farm, and am getting tons of non-stackable drops.  Since armor can be smelted into iron/gold, I'd like to smelt those drops in a furnace, and burn bows in a furnace.  And trash all leather armor.  Is there a way to sort out these non-stackable items in vanilla survival? What could cause this? f12:    Viewport:    (the f12 has fewer samples, but even when the viewport is at lower samples it looks different..)  I know about color management, but that is at the defaults..    EDIT: oops.. I know 'log' is not a default, but that is because I was fiddling with it. The image above is rendered with 'default'    The material is quite simple, only a translucent shader. (for testing) I even tried appending everything into a new file to reset all the settings, but no difference.  EDIT2: Uploaded blend Problem with tcolorbox package