People like myself are Stack Exchange trusted users with thousands of reputation points and hundreds of badges.  In other words, we've proven ourselves as people who are assets to Stack Exchange and are a key component in making it so profitable.  As such, I was surprised when I posted  on the  site, and then shortly afterwards tried to  on that same meta site, but was blocked with a message in red stating I had to wait 40 minutes before posting again.  Why is this limit present for trusted Stack Exchange contributors, and can it be changed?
I am registered on about 80 SE sites, am an "avid user"(>200 rep) on about 30, and a modest user (103-199 rep) on about 20 more.  Once when I tried to ask a question on Open Data (my "new user" site), the "systemwide" 40 minute rate limit kicked in. So I asked on meta , given that my previous post on the site was days ago. So a mod commented by telling me about the systemwide post rule and asking me if I had just come from another site. I said, yes, History (my best site, 40K rep.)  I can see why I would be rate limited on Open Data. I can understand that I would be rate limited if I had come from say, Open Source, another site where I'm a new user. But did the system "rate limit" me as a new user on one site, based on my activity on History, an "established" site?  Also, about the one day new user rate limit after a question is downvoted: Suppose a question on the previous site receives two upvotes and one downvote (net of one upvote). Is that a different situation than receiving one down downvote and no upvotes? Or does the downvote count in both cases, including the one where there were offsetting upvotes? How about if the downvoted question on the previous site was deleted?  I don't have this problem when going from one "established" (greater than 125 rep) site to another. I understand why a person would be "rate limited" going from one new site to another; SE wants people to ask questions 40 minutes apart on their new sites. In my case, I was blocked when I left an "established" site (my best) to go to a new site, which is almost the same as going to a new site de novo.  Why would this be? Or can't the system tell that my "first" site was an established site? Would I have been similarly rate limited if I went first to the "new" site, and 39 minutes later to the established site? Or does the rate limit apply only when the "destination" site is the new site?  Put another way, there are four permutations of established and new sites: 1) established to established 2) new to new 3) established to new and 4) new to established. The block doesn't apply in the first case, does apply in the second case, and apparently applies in the third. What about the fourth? And why? Because it is not "uniform" across sites in the four cases.   Edit: Unlike the other question, this one is not about the general rule. It is about the "special case" described in the paragraph above.
Seeking copy of 19th century South African birth certificate? I'm trying to find the birth certificate of my wife's great grandmother who was probably born in Durban, South Africa in 1884. I'm currently unable to find any online resources for this.  If such a thing does not exist online, is there any other method of retrieving a copy or at least just the details? How can Kitty Pryde achieve time travel with her phasing abilities? In X-Men: Days of Future Past, how does Kitty Pryde suddenly get the power to send people's minds back in time? Initially she was only able to phase through objects and could extend this power to other people. The explanation of this cited molecular spaces.  How does she go from there to time travel all of a sudden?? [Probability]need help to understand the following expression How to force the browser to reload cached CSS and JavaScript files join comma delimited data column Page title with substitution on views page I have a view page that requires a dynamic page title. It is a simple substitution of the label field.  If I use {{ label }} it works fine for the title displayed on the page, but it doesn't substitute the label for the actual page title (in meta)  I was able to fix this by using hook_views_post_render using the following code  // Set the route title. $route = \Drupal::routeMatch()-&gt;getCurrentRouteMatch()-&gt;getRouteObject(); $route-&gt;setDefault('_title', $title);  $view-&gt;setTitle($title);   However, the title only works if the page is not cached. For the cached pages, the page title is missing. This feels like a bug in drupal, but I am hoping that there is a simple way to get this done. Normalization of basis vectors with a continuous index? I have an infinite basis which associates with each point, $x$, on the $x$-axis, a basis vector $|x\rangle$ such that the matrix of $|x\rangle$ is full of zeroes and a one by the $x^{\mathrm{th}}$ element. The book on Quantum Mechanics by Shankar says that the inner product between a basis vector and itself is not one, why not? Why can't these basis vectors be normalized to one, only to the ? Maximum power transfer and Thevenin I am trying to find the thevenin resistance value and the Vth for maximum power transfer. I have tried to find Rth by calculating R3 and R2 as parallel resistance and same for R4 and R5 and then adding them with R1 but I am not sure if I have done it the right way. For Vth I have tried using KVL but I think I have calculated wrong current values using current divider rule. I calculated the total current by diving V1 and R1. I hope someone can help. I have attached the picture of the circuit. found a 1994 uncashed profit sharing retirement plan check In some text it is given that we can't assign constant values to a reference variable. When I executed such a program I could do it. Is there any condition we can't assign a constant value to a reference variable? Let $p$ be a prime number and $G$ a non abelian group or order $p^3$. Prove that $Z(G) = [G,G]$.   I have already figured out that $|Z(G)| = p$, and that $G'=[G,G] \lhd G$.  Also, $|G'| = p$ or $p²$.  I suppose I'd have to prove that $G' \subset Z(G)$, but I've been trying and I have no idea how. Any hints? Thanks! Looking for a quick and dirty way to automate . I presume this could be done with an automation to press the mouse button from two separate pixel coordinates, with delay, so long as the browser window doesn't move -- unless there's a better way.  I tried building a Watch Me Do workflow, in Automator, but can't seem to get it to work.  I get the error "application Chrome is not running when it is expected to." It also never lists mouse clicks for some reason.  I do have accessibility set up, in system preferences > security &amp; privacy > privacy > accessibility.  Automator, Chrome and System Events are all checked within there (among other stuff of course).  I tried the markashworth workaround as detailed  -- which also doesn't seem to work. Using his method, I get this error:    UPDATE: I just downloaded "cliclick" and figured out how do both clicks as a terminal command, with the proper delays.  BUT -- I don't know code and need a way for this terminal command to repeat "x" amount of times.  Anyone know how I could do that in Script Editor?  The command line is:  cliclick c:132,286 w:100 c:132,286 w:5000 c:1100,238   I would need a few seconds of delay before the loop repeats, which I presume I could do with a final "w:" in that line.  Thanks for the help!! Is it true that $0.999999999\ldots=1$? Is there an exception to the prohibition against ending a sentence with “ ’s ” at work here? The ’s can be used as a contraction representing a weak, unstressed word that is not pronounced.  It allegedly cannot occur in sentence final position.        She is not ready, but he is.   She’s not ready, but he is.   She’s not ready, but *he’s.      The last one is not grammatical there.  Similarly, here the last one is not grammatical:        He has not started yet, but she has.   He’s not started yet, but she has.   He’s not started yet, but *she’s.       claims this is because you cannot end a sentence with a weak form.  It backs up its point with reasonably scholarly documentation.  However, this does not seem to be invariably true.        Shall we go to the movies?  Yes, let us go.   Shall we go to the movies?  Yes, let’s go.   Shall we go to the movies?  Yes, let’s.      Unlike the third example in the first two sets, here in this case the third example is indeed grammatical, despite ending with a weak form.  Is this an exception to the rule, or is there another rule at work here? When is it correct to use upper case letters for nouns that may only be unique in a given context? Upgrade High-Trust Addin/App from 2013 to 2016 I have a SharePoint 2013 environment with several High-Trust Addins. This must now be upgraded to SharePoint 2016.  My Questions:   I was unable to find any documentation on the required steps. Links are welcome. Do i have to migrate App-Management Service and Subscription Settings Service?  don't even mention them.   say yes, but linked background is no longer available.  , i had to create a New-SPTrustedSecurityTokenIssuer. In this step, a RegisteredIssuerName had to be specified. This IssuerName consists of the Realm and the .   I think IssuerID can and should be migrated to SharePoint 2016, as it it also defined inside the High-Trust app. What about the Realm? This is by default the same value as FarmID. If i migrate this value, i have to change the Realm in SharePoint 2016. Or should i create the TST with a new Realm and existing IssuerID? Limits of sequences of sets I am trying to understand what mathematics is really built up of. I thought mathematical logic was the foundation of everything. But from reading a book in mathematical logic, they use "="(equals-sign), functions and relations.  Now is the "=" taken as undefined? I have seen it been defined in terms of the identity relation.  But in order to talk about functions and relations you need set theory.  However,  seems to be a part of mathematical logic.  Does this mean that (naive) set theory comes before sentential and predicate logic? Is (naive)set-theory at the absolute bottom, where we can define relations and functions and the eqality relation. And then comes sentential logic, and then predicate logic?  I am a little confused because when I took an introductory course, we had a little logic before set-theory. But now I see in another book on introduction to proofs that set-theory is in a chapter before logic. So what is at the bottom/start of mathematics, logic or set theory?, or is it circular at the bottom?  Can this be how it is at the bottom?  naive set-theory $\rightarrow$ sentential logic $\rightarrow $ predicate logic $\rightarrow$ axiomatic set-theory(ZFC) $\rightarrow$ mathematics  (But the problem with this explanation is that it seems that some naive-set theory proofs use logic...)  (The arrows are of course not "logical" arrows.)  simple explanation of the problem:  a book on logic uses at the start: functions, relations, sets, ordered pairs, "="  a book on set theory uses at the start: logical deductions like this: "$B \subseteq A$", means every element in B is in A, so if $C \subseteq B, B \subseteq A$, a proof can be "since every element in C is in B, and every element in B is in A, every element of C is in A: $C \subseteq A$". But this is first order logic? ($(c \rightarrow b \wedge b \rightarrow a)\rightarrow (c\rightarrow a)$).  Hence, both started from each other? Is posting someone's comment as an answer okay? I came across  and at the time there were no suggested answers. After reading Mark Hubbart's comment (at the time with four upvotes), which was the correct answer, and seeing that it had been over 30 minutes since his comment, I figured I would provide that answer in my own words, which I did. My answer is longer, and I think more rounded and more useful, but the core of the answer came from the comment. I have no idea if I'd have thought up the answer on my own--a definite maybe to that.  Now had I tried to be "honorable" or something, such as instead of answering, suggesting to the commenter that he make his comment an answer, I would only have accomplished giving away easy rep to some other user not as into gratuitous self-denial.  The commenter had merely to enter his comment into an answer box instead of a comment box! It was his choice! Whether he was too lazy or didn't think his answer worthwhile or some other reason is not my responsibility. Must I bend over backward to help him earn points that he so carelessly left lying around for another person to take? It just took a tiny bit of non-laziness on my part to get my text typed into the box that would reward me instead of the box that wouldn't.  If my perspective is incorrect and the community would rather see such answers-as-comments rewarded and supported, I will gladly accept that. In the meantime, I just want to shake off the tiny bit of guilt my overly-nice and overly-concerned-with-propriety self is feeling. :) UK visa: unsigned application form