Prevent xhr results from being cached, CORS problem I'm making 51 XMLHttpRequest calls to receive 161.3 MB of data for a mapping project. Every time I reload the page, these calls go out again, and it seems like they are all being cached, because the memory of the web browser (Firefox) continues to rise on every page reload until the tab crashes. I'm trying to prevent these results from being cached.  The original code returns the result fine:  var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(); var url = 'http://briennakh.me/accessibility-maps/data/census tracts/geojsons/Alabama.json'; xhr.addEventListener('load', function() {     console.log(this.response); }); xhr.open('GET', url); xhr.responseType = 'json'; xhr.send();   When I add the request header xhr.setRequestHeader('cache-control', 'no-cache'); below xhr.open('GET', url); to specify no caching, it throws the following error  Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote  resource at http://briennakh.me/accessibility-maps/data/census%20tracts/geojsons /Alabama.json. (Reason: CORS request did not succeed).   How can I stop these results from being cached?  Note: My site is served on Github pages. I do not have access to the backend code.
Prevent browser caching of AJAX call result It looks like if I load dynamic content using $.get(), the result is cached in browser.  Adding some random string in QueryString seems to solve this issue (I use new Date().toString()), but this feels like a hack.   Is there any other way to achieve this? Or, if unique string is the only way to achieve this, any suggestions other than new Date()?
Is it possible to have 2 git repositories in one directory?  I'd think not, but thought I'd ask.  Basically, I'd like to check in my home directory config files (e.g. .emacs) which should be common across all of the machines I work on, but have a second repository for local files (e.g. .emacs.local), which contains machine-specific configurations.  The only way I can think of to do that is to have the local config in a subdirectory and ignore that subdirectory from the main git repository.  Any other ideas? I'm using retextured snowballs and eggs for the different paintballs for two teams in a paintball map, so I can't replace the eggs with snowballs.  I have tried using /gamerule doMobSpawning false, but that still allows the chickens to spawn. I have also tried using /tp @e[type=Chicken] 0 0 0 on a repeating command block to quietly remove the chicken, but there's still a very noticeable frame where the chicken is visible. /effect @e[type=Chicken] minecraft:invisibility 10 1 false isn't fast enough, either.  I'm not using any plugins or mods.  tl;dr Without snowballs, how can I stop chickens from appearing for even a single frame. If $n = p_1^{a_1} ... p_r^{a_r}$ the set of nilpotents of $\mathbb{Z}_n$ is $(p_1 p_2 ... p_{r-1} p_r)\Bbb Z_n$ Separators for author group (IF conditon) I am new to LaTeX, just a beginner, basically a Perl developer.  I have created a LaTeX file  \begin{document}  \cont{\iname{\isurname{Name1}\ifname{K. C. G.}}\iname{\isurname{Name11}\ifname{Y. Q.}}\iname{\isurname{Name111}\ifname{C.-Z.}}\ititles{Some title Text}\ipage{995}}  \end{document}   Now my need is to define LaTeX commands so that the output should appear as below     Name1 K. C. G., Name11 Y. Q. and Name111 C.-Z. Some title Text - 995.   \iname - Person Name will repeat several times \isurname - Surname of a person \ifname - First Name of a person    \iname will repeat any number of times, say 1 to ...  If only one \iname found inside \cont, display should be like the below     Name1 K. C. G. Some title Text - 995.   If only two \iname found inside \cont, display should be like the below     Name1 K. C. G. and Name11 Y. Q. Some title Text - 995.   If more than two \iname found inside \cont, display should be like the below (and should come after last \iname)     Name1 K. C. G., Name11 Y. Q. and Name111 C.-Z. Some title Text - 995.   I can define input for \iname separated by commas, but I don't know how to write a macro to define \iname with different outputs based on the if condition.  I hope to have clearly explained my doubt. I have a hard time finding a how-to.  I would like to set up a simple ESD mat and wrist wrap, but I am not sure about is the the 1 MOhm resistor should be, if at all.  Several options:   1 MOhm from ground outlet to the mat, wire from the common earthing on the mat to the wrist wrap. 1 MOhm from ground outlet to the mat, wire from another contact on the mat to the wrist wrap. 1 MOhm from ground outlet to the mat, 1 MOhm from the same mat contact to the wrist wrap. wire from ground outlet to the mat, 1 MOhm from the same mat contact to the wrist wrap. wire from ground outlet to the mat, wire from another mat contact to the wrist wrap.   I am not sure why the 1 MOhm wire is needed since the mat itself already has that kind of resistance (as long as the wrist wrap does not connect to ground directly, but through the mat).  Which solutions above are ok? Which is best? Should I do something else instead? Looking out into the universe means looking back in time - how does that work? This is a question that has been gnawing on me for many years now. Back a long time ago, as I recall in reference to a scene in a popular science show on TV, I was asked the following.  The claim is that when you look out into the universe, you see the universe as it appeared at some past time. (This follows from the speed of light being finite, and looking at objects by observing their emitted light or other EM radiation.) The amount of time that one looks backwards is equal to the distance to the observed object in light-distance (so looking at something ten lightyears away means you are observing it as it was ten years ago).  Matter moves at a rate of speed less than the speed of light (it has to, since matter has mass, even if miniscule at the atomic level). So $v_{mass} \lt v_{EM}$ (probably significantly less, since $v_{EM} = c$).  So let's say you're looking at an object $10^{10}$ lightyears away by observing something for which $v=c$. To the observer, that object appears as it was $10^{10}$ years ago. But the Earth is much younger than $10^{10}$ years and we established that matter moves at a slower speed than EM radiation, so wouldn't the radiation that was emitted $10^{10}$ years ago long since have passed Earth's current position?  If, say, $v_{mass} = 0.5 \times c$ (a big assumption, but bear with me for a second), it would seem that the radiation emitted $10^{10}$ years ago would have passed Earth's current position $10^{10} - (0.5 \times 10^{10}) = 5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago, around the time when the solar system was still forming. Setting $v_{mass} = 0.25 \times c$ (which seems more realistic) means the radiation would have passed "us" around $7.5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago. So how could we be observing it now?  I'm not sure I'm posing this question in the best possible way (I'll admit I do find the concept somewhat confusing), and I'm sure that there's a simple explanation for it all. Just what am I missing?  I did find  which seems peripherally related but not quite the same thing. Qmechanic brought up  but that question seems to be about whether it is so, not why it is so. Windows update giving error 80070002 and manual update not working how to update? I have been trying to update my pc from 20h1 to 20h2 but the windows update shows error message 80007002 and when I manually install the update using windows 10 update assistant it downloads completely and then even starts install and gets stuck at 87 percent on the screen where it says do not turn off. What to do? This is the log file. Matching Profile found: FindRollbackFailure - 3A43C9B5-05B3-4F7C-A955-88F991BB5A48 SetupDiag version: 1.6.0.0 System Information:     Machine Name =      Manufacturer =      Model =      HostOSArchitecture = 1033     FirmwareType = UEFI     BiosReleaseDate = 20160513000000.000000+000     BiosVendor = A12     BiosVersion = A12     HostOSVersion = 10.0.19041     HostOSBuildString = 19041.1.amd64fre.vb_release.191206-1406     TargetOSBuildString = 10.0.19041.621 (vb_release_svc_prod1.201014-1758)     HostOSLanguageId =      HostOSEdition = CoreSingleLanguage     RegisteredAV = Quick Heal Internet Security     FilterDrivers = FileInfo     UpgradeStartTime = 12/20/2020 2:54:38 PM     UpgradeEndTime = 12/20/2020 5:30:40 PM     UpgradeElapsedTime = 02:36:02     CV = Pi3IdU3SlEqpFx93     ReportId =    Error: SetupDiag reports rollback failure found. Last Phase = Pre OOBE Boot Last Operation = OOBE boot apply Error = 0xC1900101-0x4000D LogEntry:   Refer to &quot;https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/Debug/system-error-codes&quot; for error information.  Last Setup Phase: Phase Name: Pre OOBE Boot     Phase Started: 12/20/2020 4:37:50 PM     Phase Ended: 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AM     Phase Time Delta: 00:00:00     Completed Successfully? False   Last Setup Operation: Operation Name: OOBE boot apply     Operation Started: 12/20/2020 4:37:50 PM     Operation Ended: 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AM     Operation Time Delta: 0:00:00:00.0000000     Completed Successfully? False Find the limit $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{x_1 y_n + x_2 y_{n-1} + \cdots + x_n y_1}{n}$ When $\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = a$, and $\lim_{n\to\infty} y_n = b$, find the limit, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{x_1 y_n + x_2 y_{n-1} + \cdots + x_n y_1}{n}.$$ Thank you for your help in advance. I've gone into the Nether and seemed to have lost my portal out of it, I also can't die in lava or by mobs attacking me, I'm appear to be invincible and can't die.  This is Single Player by the way.  Why is this happening? Why the following example prints "0" and what must change for it to print "1" as I expected ?  #include &lt;iostream&gt; struct base {    virtual const int value() const {       return 0;    }    base() {       std::cout &lt;&lt; value() &lt;&lt; std::endl;    }    virtual ~base() {} };  struct derived : public base {    virtual const int value() const {       return 1;    } };  int main(void) {    derived example; } Why are bash tests so picky about whitespace? As a primarily Java programmer, I find the bash if-then construct quite confusing, especially regarding whitespace. Can anyone explain why the first one works, but not the second or third?  #works if [ -n $1 ]; then echo "parameterized"; fi  #output: ./links: Zeile 1: [-n: Kommando nicht gefunden. if [-n $1 ]; then echo "parameterized"; fi  #output: ./links: Zeile 1: [: Fehlende `]' if [ -n $1]; then echo "parameterized"; fi Short Story/Novella in Which People Living in What they Think is Small Town Fifties America Find Look Magazine and Don't Recognize Anything in It This is probably from the mid-to-late fifties.  It involved families living in what seemed to be normal, small town America of the time.  But two boys found in a garbage dump or in a nearby landfill a copy of "LOOK" magazine from their time period (1955? 1957?).  Their problem was that they and their families didn't recognize any of the people or events that were reported in the magazine.    The tone of the articles in the magazine matched their actual lives in that the magazine reported world events, trouble spots, celebrities, politics, and had advertisements for cigarettes and TVs, etc. but the facts were completely different. I think the magazine was a magazine from 'real' America and they were living in a 'fake' America, i.e., they had been brought up in a separate isolated environment with everything different but now had found something from the 'real' world. The tone of the story was that they were never supposed to know about any of this. Maybe, just maybe, part of it was a story about Marilyn Monroe but none of the people had ever heard of her. I can't remember much more than that but I have a nagging thought that they were part of some controlled environment experiment by the US Military. Is every invertible matrix a change of basis matrix? I've never really thought about how the shell actually executes piped commands. I've always been told that the "stdout of one program gets piped into the stdin of another," as a way of thinking about pipes. So naturally, I thought that in the case of say, A | B, A would run first, then B gets the stdout of A, and uses the stdout of A as its input.    But I've noticed that when people search for a particular process in ps, they'd include grep -v "grep" at the end of the command to make sure that grep doesn't appear in the final output. This means that in the command ps aux | grep "bash" | grep -v "grep" it is implied that ps knew that grep was running and therefore is in the output of ps. But if ps finishes running before its output gets piped to grep, how did it know that grep was running?   flamingtoast@FTOAST-UBUNTU: ~$ ps | grep ".*" PID TTY          TIME CMD 3773 pts/0    00:00:00 bash 3784 pts/0    00:00:00 ps 3785 pts/0    00:00:00 grep Finding volume of a segment In the header of my document I set the maximal author names to 2:  \usepackage[style=authoryear-icomp, maxbibnames=9, maxcitenames=2, backend=biber]{biblatex}   Now, when I cite texts with two authors, LaTeX gives me the following:     (Author_A/ Author_B 2012: 232)   When I have three authors or more, LaTeX makes it:     (Author_A/ Author_B et al. 2012: 232)   But I want LaTeX to just name the first author if there are more than two authors ... like this:     (Author_A et al. 2012: 232)   Any tips on how to achieve this ? A topological space $X$ is said to be irreducible if it cannot be written as a union $X = A∪B$, where $A$ and $B$ are proper closed subspaces of $X$  I want to try the following:  Show:  $(i)$ That every set with the indiscrete topology is irreducible, and every infinite set with the finite complement topology is irreducible.  $(ii)$ That an irreducible Hausdorff space contains at most one point.  Can you give me any suggestions on how to try this? What is the name for the grammatical figure, where the present tense is substituted for a past event? I am preparing a book for publication which contains the following passage:     Stromberg in Religious Liberalism in Eighteenth-Century England   (1954) noted that 'the critical moment in the emergence of a positive   spirit of reform...consisted in the awareness of evil as being social   and remediable. It begins about 1750.'   My proof reader (my wife) has picked this out suggesting it should be the past tense. However if I say It began about 1750 it seems to convey too much certainty about the exact date. I just want to convey an impression of it being something which emerges in the mid-eighteenth century. I believe use of the present tense is the way to go.   But what is this artifice called, this use of the present to convey mild uncertainty? Labeling Multiple Equations Per Row of a Table If I upload my brain into a computer is it still me? I think the answer is yes but I know a lot of people disagree. So, I would like to ask these people when exactly does it stop being me.  Let's say I want to upload my brain into a computer using the following procedure:  I have each of my neurons replaced by electronic neurons. By electronic neurons I mean chips with the necessary hardware and software to perform the exact same function that the neuron being replaced was performing. This means that given the same inputs that the biological neuron was given it would produce the same outputs. Then I connect that electronic neuron to all the neurons that former biological neuron was connected to.   At the end of this process is it still me? If not when did it stop being me? When one neuron was replaced? When 1,000 were replaced? When 1,000,000 were replaced?  (assuming it is still me)  Then, I divide these electronic neurons into groups and for each group I perform the following:   Write software to simulate the group of electrical neurons in my computer such that given the same inputs that go into the group of electronic neurons in my brain, it will produce the same outputs. Replace each group of neurons with another chip that communicates with my computer. Each of the chips will communicate to the corresponding software module in order to determine how to transform its inputs into the necessary outputs. Connect all of the inputs and outputs of the group of electronic neurons to that new chip.   At the end of this process is it still me? If not when did it stop being me? When one group was replaced? When 1,000 were replaced? When 1,000,000 were replaced?  (assuming it is still me) Now, what I have is a bunch of these new chips in my head, connected to each other and for each of these chips I have a small neural network software module in my computer. So, now for each pair of chip/software module I do this:   Transfer all connections going into and out of the chip into the computer version (i.e. connect the software module to the other software modules that represent the other chips that this chip is connected to) Disconnect the chip from the other chips and remove it   At the end of this process is it still me? If not when did it stop being me? When one of the new chips was replaced? When 1,000 were replaced? When 1,000,000 were replaced?  If it is still me then I have successfully moved my brain into a computer without ceasing being myself.  So, again the question is if at the end it is not me anymore when exactly does it stop being me and why does it stop being me?  EDIT: This question assumes that our universe and everything in it (including ourselves) follows the (testable) laws of physics. As it stands it also assumes that neuroscience is mostly right, although the question could also be considered without that requirement if instead of neural simulations we were to implement physics simulation of the brain. Of course this is a lot less practical. However, if your view is that our minds have a supernatural component then the question does not make any sense.  It was also pointed out that this is related to the Ship of Theseus, i.e. is something still the same if all its parts have been changed. With regards to that I think it is useful to consider that most of the cells in our body (not including brain cells) are regularly replaced anyway and some people even get entire organs replaced. Yet, we don't say that they stopped being themselves. Note, however, that if you are assuming a supernatural component of the mind that this explanation is not really adequate or relevant.