Timestamp retrived with `date -r file` does not fit the time order of commands
linux: touch date precision
What diceless tabletop RPG techniques are there? I am interested in using a diceless resolution system for my roleplaying, but am not sure what my options are in that vein. I can think of basically two categories of diceless tabletop role-playing systems - systems which eschew any randomisation, and those which randomise by some method other than dice.  Examples  Non-random tabletop systems  One option is of direct comparison of stats or other game statistics without a randomization factor. The obvious example here is Amber DRPG, but I suspect that there are other narrative driven RPGs out there that I don't know about.   Even in Amber, situation resolution it is rarely by direct comparison between stats. Narrative techniques can be used to manoeuvre two characters into a situation which narrows the gap between their ranking, widens it, or brings other stats into the picture - the classic example of course being Corwin relying on his stamina to stretch out conflicts with his siblings such that it becomes a dominant enough factor that he can escape.  Other randomisation techniques  I have seen card-based randomization system. Over the years, I've played quite a few home brew games based on the original SAGA Dragonlance system, which was similar to the SAGA Marvel superhero system.  The basic mechanics were that you had a hand size according to your experience, and for any skill check you would play a card from your hand and replace your card from the draw pile. If you had a card of the right suit as the skill check (a strength card on a strength check) you would also draw a card from the draw pile and add that to your skill check, so a small trump was often worth more than a medium value card not of the correct suit. When you were wounded, you would discard cards to the value of the damage, but those cards wouldn't be replenished - your hand size would be reduced until you were healed. One nice aspect of the system was that it simulated fatigue beautifully, you might start a scene with a spread of high, medium and low cards, but as your high cards were played they would more often than not get replaced by lower value cards, until you were left with a bunch of useless cards and feeling very vulnerable.    The only other system I've played without dice was Everway which, if I remember correctly, used a combination of these techniques, stats based resolution, card resolution and GM fiat.  What I would be interested in is what other diceless resolution techniques exist, ideally with examples of tabletop diceless resolution methods people have tried and how they found them to play. EDIT: Summary  I think I've found the best definition of what I want thanks to the discussion with @M. Tibbits:  When I open or refresh the SO, I get a notification of new activities that are of interest to me. Today these are (hard-coded): answers to my questions and comments addressed to me. I want a bit more control over it, that's all.     Yes, I've read  and , but I think I add new (good :) ) reasons for re-asking it:  The first question was answered before this so handy "inbox" notification feature was implemented. So now using favorites for "watching" a question is wrong, IMHO, for 2 reasons:   it splits essentially the same functionality (of getting notified when there is an activity you are interested in) between 2 very different user interfaces it's cumbersome - I need to: 1) add question to favorites; 2) click on my profile dropdown; 3) click on the "favorites" line; 4) see all my favorites with recent activity; 5) select the one I watch; 6) repeat this process occasionally to get updates; and 7) possibly remove the question from favorites at the end. All this as opposed to this little red button when there are news.   Favorites are different in nature that watching. I add a question to Favorites when I find the answers useful to me in my work, so I may want to have it handy in the future. By watching an interesting question I will be able to decide whether I want it in faviorites, after I see the answers.  EDIT: I see that I was not clear enough.  I want to add a question to Favorites when:   it has some good answers the question and answers are relevant in my work I want to keep them handy as my long-term (persistent) knowledge base   I want to watch a question for short while (matter of days/weeks) when:   it is interesting / relevant I want to follow it to see what are the answers. Then I can decide whether I want it in my favorites   As you see, the main differentiators are good answers and long/short term. For short-term, automatic notification is better.  Bottom line, all I ask is "watch this question" checkbox (which may expire after say a week if there is a need to free resources) note: This is a question about relativistic effects. I've included some detail about the spacecraft and its orbit for background, but the question is about relativistic effects and their observability.     When the Parker Solar Probe passes within 8.5 solar radii of the Sun, it will be moving really fast.  A perihelion and aphelion of about 6.6 and 109 million kilometers suggests a semi-major axis of 57.8 million kilometers. The standard gravitational parameter for the Sun is:  $$GM_{Sun} \ = 1.327\times 10^{20} m^3/s^2$$  So using the :  $$v^2 \ = \ GM_{Sun}\left(\frac{2}{r}-\frac{1}{a}\right)$$  the orbital velocity at perihelion will be about 195,000 m/s, or about 25 times faster than a satellite in LEO. This is close to one part per thousand of the speed of light! I think this will be a new record for a spacecraft velocity relative to the solar system.  Depth of a gravitational potential well for an object of mass $m$ is approximately given by:  $$u_G \ = \ -GM_{Sun}\frac{1}{r}$$  At 6.6 million kilometers the spacecraft will be 23 times deeper in the Sun's gravitational well than it would be at 1 AU.  Will there be any particularly unique relativistic effects detectable for the Parker Solar Probe during it's close flyby of the Sun?  Just for example, during one close flyby, how much time will its on-board clock gain or lose compared to some convenient standard solar system timescale? I know there are several different choices, "GPS time" might be one but I don't want to arbitrarily choose an inconvenient one.     above: Parker Solar Probe cropped, from .    above: screen shot from NASA's      note: the link seems to be dead now, but there is plenty of related information available at     above: Illustration of the Parker Solar Probe's orbit, from . I have a page where some event listeners are attached to input boxes and select boxes. Is there a way to find out which event listeners are observing a particular DOM node and for what event?  Events are attached using:    Event.observe; DOM's addEventListener; As element attribute element.onclick. How to rename objects with python? Relationship between (algebraic) vector bundle and (topological) vector bundle on $\mathbb{RP}^{1}$($\mathbb{P}^{1}$) What are the big differences among the D&D editions? I've been out of the loop for a while, and I used to play AD&amp;D 2nd ed, but today I find there are a lot of different versions that have fairly different gameplay.   Can anyone summarize the really big differences, the ones (maybe top three?) that are the 'killer features' of the different editions? What makes each edition play differently than the others? Is there a ZIP code I can enter when paying-at-the-pump in the USA with a foreign credit card? In the USA, many  fuel dispensers that accept credit cards require a  that corresponds to the billing address of the credit card.  In Canada, for instance, we have , so it's not obvious what you're supposed to type in since the gas dispensers have only numeric keypads.  Entering '00000' or '90210' seems to always result in failed authorization.  Is there a zip code that works for credit cards with foreign billing addresses? What's the difference between "speak" and "talk", grammatically speaking? There are a number of questions e.g.  and  that deal with the slightly different connotations of the words "speak" and "talk". However, there also seem to be some grammatical differences between the two words. This question is about whether there's a way to formally pin down these differences, or whether they're just contingent features of the two words having different histories.  Some examples of grammatical differences are as follows:   be talkative ... be speakative speak French ... talk French give a talk ... give a speech (as opposed to a speak) speak up ... talk up (the meanings of the two phrases being completely different, with "up" being a preposition only in the latter case) speaking of which ... talking of which grammatically speaking ... grammatically talking   On the other hand, many other constructions work just as well with either (though they might have subtly different meanings), for example   speak to ... talk to speak with ... talk with speak about ... talk about   I'm interested in whether there's a way to pin down these differences (e.g. are the two words classified as different types of verb in some way?), or whether they're essentially just arbitrary. I'm also interested in why we have these two different words with subtly different meanings. Is the distinction between “speak” and “talk” a feature of many languages, or is it just a peculiarity of English?  Etymologically, both words are from Germanic origins. “Talk” seems to have been formed from the Middle English tale, even though “speak” already existed in the English language by then (as far as I can tell). This makes it even more mysterious: Why did we form a new word as a synonym of one that was already established? Or were the meanings different at that time? I am not a native English speaker, I usually hear “something caught my eye” but never “something caught (both) my eyes”. This seems pretty strange to me.  Cambridge Dictionaries Online provide these examples but without any explanation        (i) to get someone's ​attention:   A ​sudden ​movement ​caught my ​eye.        (ii) to get someone's ​attention, ​especially by ​looking at them:   I ​tried to catch the waiter's ​eye, so we could ​order.        (iii) to be ​attractive or different enough to be ​noticed by someone:   It was the ​unusual ​colour of his ​jacket that ​caught my ​eye.   Why is only one eye ‘caught”? Doesn't something catch our sight? We normally see with both eyes, not with one. Drawing a square root spiral Ctrl+Alt+← can usually be set to restart X, however I can't find the option to allow this (it is disabled by default).  I have looked in System-&gt;Preferences-&gt;Keyboard and System-&gt;Preferences-&gt;Keyboard Shortcuts but I can't find an option to enable it.  Where can I change this setting? What are examples where a "naive bootstrap" fails? Why could the dwarves only enter Erebor with the secret passage? Please bear with me as I've never read any of the LOTR books or the Hobbit, only seen the movies so far...  But when the sunlight fades and the dwarves think they've lost their only chance to enter Erebor using the secret passage and the key, they turn around to head home. Why is it that the dwarves would be unable to enter Erebor the way they did years ago, using regular doors to get inside? I'm assuming that's how they entered Erebor years ago? Linear Discriminant Analysis for $p=1$ newenvironment: error with \begin{align} and \end{align} In the example below, an error is caused by \begin{align} and \end{align} but I do not see why:  \documentclass{book} \usepackage{amsmath} \newenvironment{subalign}{\begin{subequations}\begin{align}}{\end{align}\end{subequations}} \begin{document} \begin{subalign}      a&amp;=b\\     &amp;=b \end{subalign} \end{document} "Reality" of EM waves vs. wavefunction of individual photons - why not treat the wave function as equally "Real"? In thinking how to ask this question (somewhat) succinctly, I keep coming back to a Microwave Oven.  A Microwave Oven has a grid of holes over the window specifically designed to be smaller in diameter than the wavelength of the microwaves it produces, yet larger than the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum - this is so you can watch your food being heated without getting an eye full of microwaves.  The "realness" of electromagnetic waves seems indisputable - both from the microwave example above, and also because if I want to broadcast a radio wave with a certain wavelength, then I need to make sure I have an antenna of corresponding length to produce the wave I'm looking for.  Furthermore, we discuss and treat these waves as real, measurable "objects" that exist and can be manipulated.     Now, if I want to describe the behavior of my Microwave Oven in the framework of QM (let's pretend my oven is going to only produce 1 photon of energy corresponding to a wavelength of the microwave spectrum for simplicity) then I'll describe the behavior of that photon as a wavefunction that evolves over time and gives a probability distribution within my microwave that similarly does not allow the photon to pass through the safety grid and exit the oven cavity giving me a retinal burn.  The difference is, the wavefunction is never treated as something "real" in this description.  When the safety grid is described as working to protect you because it has holes smaller than the wavelength of the classical waves it's blocking, this is a useful description that seems to describe "real" objects/be-ables.  While it is possible to describe why an individual photon has low probability of passing through the same grid but extended physical properties such as wavelength (in space) are treated as non-real because we're dealing with a point particle and with behavior described by something we also treat as non-real (the wavefunction); it seems unclear to me why we insist this wave function which predicts behavior of physical measurements so well is somehow "non-real."    Put another way, if we have no problem treating EM waves as "Real," then why do we insist on treating the wavefunction that describes the same behavior as "unreal?"  I understand there is recent research (Eric Cavalcanti and his group for one) trying to argue this point, but as every respectable physics professor, I've ever encountered, has treated the wavefunction as an indisputably non-real mathematical tool, I needed to ask this community for an answer. Why doesn't the Moon fall onto the Earth? For that matter, why doesn't anything rotating a larger body ever fall onto the larger body? How can I find the method that called the current method? We login to applications almost every day. The password is stored in our fingers, as an automated process (if they have used it long enough). When users realize they have entered a wrong character (before hitting login-button) they erase the whole password, and retype the entire password – instead of just the last wrong character. Question is why?         &ndash; Wireframes created with