My cleric and wizard were both stuck in glue in recent combat, and a third PC was down. Instead of rolling to free themselves, they opted to fight from where they were. Once the combat was "over", i.e. all beasts were felled, did they need to still roll "in turn" to free themselves and heal the dying PC or could they have "rolled free" on their own and healed him?  I am a new DM and my Husband is an old school D&amp;D person - not that familiar with 5e but knows the old rules well. we disagreed on this, and I'm curious what you all think. Thanks!    In reading , the writer states combat continues until all things "combat related" are dealt with, which would mean turns continue in order, including saves from glue trap and death saves. If this is correct, then I suppose my question is answered, but I would like someone to clarify. I do not find anything in the PH discussion of combat that specifies when it ends.
Imagine that a PC gets reduced to 0 hit points during a battle. The battle continues for a couple more rounds and they roll their death saves, one success and one failure (not sure if this part of the question is relevant).  Then the rest of the party defeats the last enemy and battle is over. Now what?    Does the downed PC keep rolling death saves until they strike 3 one way or the other? Does everyone else repeatedly roll for Medicine to stabalise the dying PC? Or (as we've been ruling it) they are just assumed to become stabilised because combat is over (I'm fairly certain this probably isn't RAW or RAI though).   I've looked through the PHB and I've only managed to find descriptions of being stabilised during combat, not after it.  Ideally I'd like a rule quoted (or a tweet or something) to point to where such a thing is outlined in the rules, if it is written anywhere.
In my flagging summary under the statistics, there is 1 flag listed as "disputed".  This is the first time I've ever seen a disputed flag in my summary, so I'm just curious, what is a disputed flag? How would you even dispute a flag? Is this the same as voting a flag as invalid? Why is the laboratory frame energy always greater than the center of mass frame energy? I have been looking for an answer to 'Why is the laboratory frame energy always greater than the center of mass frame energy during collisions?'.  A lot of resources provided mathematical explanations. I wanted to get some perspectives in terms of physics.  Could you explain this? 14.04 - Network manager stopped working When I started my laptop, there was no network service, and also no network icon in the top bar. It gives an error when I start OS like "Sorry, Ubuntu 14.04 experienced an internal error". When I click details, it says the error is occurred in the executable path usr/sbin/NetworkManager. Also, when I try to enter Network in the System Settings, it says "the system network services are not compatible with this version"  How can I solve this shocking issue?  p.s. I didn't install any third party packages/apps related with networking. Only system updates are installed. Most efficient way to check for DBNull and then assign to a variable? This question comes up occasionally, but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer.  A typical pattern is (row is a DataRow):   if (row["value"] != DBNull.Value)  {       someObject.Member = row["value"];  }   My first question is which is more efficient (I've flipped the condition):    row["value"] == DBNull.Value; // Or   row["value"] is DBNull; // Or   row["value"].GetType() == typeof(DBNull) // Or... any suggestions?    indicates that .GetType() should be faster, but maybe the compiler knows a few tricks I don't?  Second question, is it worth caching the value of row["value"] or does the compiler optimize the indexer away anyway?  For example:    object valueHolder;   if (DBNull.Value == (valueHolder = row["value"])) {}   Notes:   row["value"] exists. I don't know the column index of the column (hence the column name lookup). I'm asking specifically about checking for DBNull and then assignment (not about premature optimization, etc.).   I benchmarked a few scenarios (time in seconds, 10,000,000 trials):  row["value"] == DBNull.Value: 00:00:01.5478995 row["value"] is DBNull: 00:00:01.6306578 row["value"].GetType() == typeof(DBNull): 00:00:02.0138757   Object.ReferenceEquals has the same performance as "=="  The most interesting result? If you mismatch the name of the column by case (for example, "Value" instead of "value", it takes roughly ten times longer (for a string):  row["Value"] == DBNull.Value: 00:00:12.2792374   The moral of the story seems to be that if you can't look up a column by its index, then ensure that the column name you feed to the indexer matches the DataColumn's name exactly.  Caching the value also appears to be nearly twice as fast:  No Caching: 00:00:03.0996622 With Caching: 00:00:01.5659920   So the most efficient method seems to be:   object temp;  string variable;  if (DBNull.Value != (temp = row["value"]))  {       variable = temp.ToString();  } What does "had had" mean? How does this differ from "had"? For example, what is the difference between the following two sentences:     I had a bad day      I had had a bad day Is there a difference in ++i and i++ in a for loop? Is it simply a syntax thing? $G$ solvable $\implies$ composition factors of $G$ are of prime order. I'm trying to prove the equivalency of the following definitions for a finite group, $G$:  (i) $G$ is solvable, i.e. there exists a chain of subgroups $1 = G_0  \trianglelefteq G_1 \trianglelefteq \cdots \trianglelefteq G_s = G $ such that $G_{i+1}/ \ G_i$ is abelian for all $0 \leq i \leq s-1$  (ii) $G$ has a chain of subgroups $1 = H_0  \trianglelefteq H_1 \trianglelefteq \cdots \trianglelefteq H_s = G $ such that $H_{i+1} /\  H_i$ is cyclic for all $0 \leq i \leq s-1$.  (iii) All composition factors of $G$ are of prime order.  (iv) G has a chain of subgroups $1 = N_0  \trianglelefteq N_1 \trianglelefteq \cdots \trianglelefteq N_t = G $ such that each $N_i$ is a normal subgroup of $G$, and $N_{i+1}/ \ N_i$ is abelian for all $0 \leq i \leq t-1$.  It was simple to show that (iii) $\implies$ (ii) and (ii) $\implies$ (i). Now, I'm trying to prove that (i) $\implies$ (iii), and I'm getting stuck.   I know that If $G$ is an abelian simple group, then $|G|$ is prime, so all I need to show is that each $G_{i+1}/ \ G_i$ in the definition of solvable is simple.  If I knew that $1 = G_0  \trianglelefteq G_1 \trianglelefteq \cdots \trianglelefteq G_s = G $ were a composition series, then each $G_{i+1}/ \ G_i$ would be simple by definition. But the definition of solvable doesn't assume a composition series. I know every group has a unique composition series, but I'm not sure how to connect that to the subgroups in the definition of solvable.   More generally, I guess I just don't understand how being abelian connects to being of simple or of prime order.  Any pushes in the right direction would be appreciated! Destroying a spammer does not delete their comments What's your preferred way of getting current system status (current CPU, RAM, free disk space, etc.) in Python? Bonus points for *nix and Windows platforms.  There seems to be a few possible ways of extracting that from my search:   Using a library such as  (that currently seems not actively developed and not supported on multiple platform) or something like  (again no activity since 2007 it seems and no support for Windows). Using platform specific code such as using a os.popen("ps") or similar for the *nix systems and MEMORYSTATUS in ctypes.windll.kernel32 (see ) for the Windows platform. One could put a Python class together with all those code snippets.   It's not that those methods are bad but is there already a well-supported, multi-platform way of doing the same thing? What is the difference between DX format and FX format lenses, and which to choose for what purpose?  What are the pros and cons of both? Comparison between bootstrap percentiles confidence interval and BCa confidence interval? I have generated a nonparametric percentiles bootstrap confidence interval ($32.27143, 51.08571$), and a BCA confidence interval ($33.26, 53.49$) with an initial sample size of $n=7$.  Evidently, the BCA interval is larger than the percentiles interval. Shouldn't the BCA interval be better than the percentiles interval (and by "better" I mean "smaller")? I noticed also that when the sample size is larger, for example $n=40$, BCa confidence interval decreases. bash: /usr/bin/locale-check: No such file or directory error after i downgraded from ubuntu 18.10 to 18.04 Enumerate after \label I have the following code:  \usepackage{hyperref} \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}  \begin{thm} \label{mythm}    \begin{enumerate}       \item     \end{enumerate} \end{thm}  \ref{mythm}   The ref prints the right number. However, when I click on it, it will lead me to a wrong page (basically, to the beginning of the document).  pdflatex also has some warning.  If I add $ $ between \begin{thm} and \begin{enumerate}, the problem disappears, but now, the enumeration starts a new line.  Is there any way to fix this? Jutifying: irrational + rational = irrational I need to refer to a model described elsewhere, from a section title, like  \section{Analysis of model X}    One way of referring to a model is to create a new counter, and then write  \section{Analysis of \cref{grandmodelofeverything}}   But now hyperref will complain because of invalid token, and it does not look good in the TOC either, especially since the titles of the sections the describe the models are more descriptive than  \section{Model 1}   They are currently like  \section{Adding the effect from Y processes}   Do I need to invent semi-descriptive long names like "The model by Authors with this modification" or can I live with these quirks? According to      there         adverb          in or at that place (opposed to here ):      She is there now.         pronoun          (used to introduce a sentence or clause in which the verb comes before its subject or has no complement):      There is no hope.   Then, what element is there in:     There is the man.   I'm confused because "There is the man" is an adverb inversion, in which there is an adverb and "the man is" is inverted. But according to the definition above, there suddenly becomes a pronoun. Currently I have a script.sh file with the following content:  #!/bin/bash wget -q http://exemple.com/page1.php; wget -q http://exemple.com/page2.php; wget -q http://exemple.com/page3.php;   I want to execute the commands one by one, when the previous finishes. Am I doing it in the right way? I've never worked with Linux before and tried to search for it but found no solutions. Reprojecting LiDAR data with libLAS, error: "latitude or longitude exceeded limits"? I have a lidar file (file.las) with the following spatial reference:  Spatial Reference:            PROJCS["NAD83 / UTM zone 11N",     GEOGCS["NAD83",         DATUM["North_American_Datum_1983",             SPHEROID["GRS 1980",6378137,298.2572221010002,                 AUTHORITY["EPSG","7019"]],             AUTHORITY["EPSG","6269"]],         PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],         UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],         AUTHORITY["EPSG","4269"]],     PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],     PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",0],     PARAMETER["central_meridian",-117],     PARAMETER["scale_factor",0.9996],     PARAMETER["false_easting",500000],     PARAMETER["false_northing",0],     UNIT["metre",1,         AUTHORITY["EPSG","9001"]],     AUTHORITY["EPSG","26911"]]   Then I reproject it to WGS84 with las2las:  las2las --a_srs EPSG:26911 --t_srs EPSG:4326 -i file1.las -o output.las   And I get:   Spatial Reference:                GEOGCS["WGS 84",         DATUM["WGS_1984",             SPHEROID["WGS 84",6378137,298.257223563,                 AUTHORITY["EPSG","7030"]],             AUTHORITY["EPSG","6326"]],         PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],         UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],         AUTHORITY["EPSG","4326"]]   But when I try to revert the transformation: from WGS84 to NAD83/UTM 11N, I get an error:  las2las --a_srs EPSG:4326 --t_srs EPSG:26911 -i output.las -o wgs2utm.las ERROR 1: latitude or longitude exceeded limits error: Could not project point for ReprojectionTransform::latitude or longitude exceeded limits0.   Why I got this error, if I am just reversing the transformation (originally from NAD83 to WGS84, and then from WGS84 to NAD83)?. Why should the Standard Model be renormalizable? Effective theories like Little Higgs models or Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model are non-renormalizable and there is no problem with it, since an effective theory does not need to be renormalizable. These theories are valid until a scale $\Lambda$ (ultraviolet cutoff), after this scale an effective theory need a UV completion, a more "general" theory.  The Standard Model, as an effective theory of particle physics, needs a more general theory that addresses the phenomena beyond the Standard Model (an UV completion?). So, why should the Standard Model be renormalizable? Find the equation of the plane knowing that it passes through 3 points