Is it possible to recreate 3d effects with nativescript?

I develop the question, I have seen that there are css (limited) styles that allow us to make very good animations in nativescript, but I have not been able to recreate the flip effect that nativescript has on pagination but for an element of the view.

It would be something like this in html:

Photo editing: how do you get these HDR effects?

Usually, I would just say something in the sense that to get really good results consistently, you have to work hard and that goes beyond simply feeding images in Photomatix, and although that is still true, I think in this case I can offer Some more specific tips.

I am pretty sure that those images were made by manually combining two images, one from the sky and one from the foreground. This is based on the general appearance, the lack of halos, the existence of real deep shadows and a slight artifact in the second that looks like a sign of revealing masking.

Most of the scenes that HDR would use to capture have a dynamic range that is divided approximately into two sections, the foreground and the sky. The sky is usually much brighter since it is the source of lighting (as when you get a flash or the reflection of a flash in a photo, it is really bright). However, the sky itself has a relatively low dynamic range, which fits the range that the camera can capture. Similarly with the foreground (to a lesser extent). It's just the combination that is too much for the camera.

This leads to an alternative way of producing images of such scenes. Take two images, one exposed for the foreground and one for the sky. Each can be processed using standard techniques to give a striking, but not abnormal, contrast image. As each image is processed normally, you get nothing from the HDR, the effect similar to the paint, the lack of deep shadows, the thickness (where the software tries to add contrast to the areas that shouldn't have any) and the halos where it is dark and the light mixes with each other but not along the appropriate edges:

Here is an image I produced from a 7-shot HDR image with Photomatix. It looks horrible and shows all the artifacts listed above. I wasn't trying to create a bad image, but I didn't have much time to play with the sliders. I am sure you can do better, but the resulting image will always have many of the same qualities.

I decided to start from scratch and took only the brightest and darkest images. Here is the darkest image, given a contrasting raw conversion:

The sky looks good, but the theme is just a silhouette. Here is the brightest image, with a similar treatment:

Again, the subject is good, but the sky has become almost pure white! However, it is a relatively simple job to merge the two into one image. The white sky gives a base to create a mask, although an additional manual selection is required around the edges of the guitarist. Here is the final mixed image:

It still looks unreal, but without distracting artifacts. There is no halo since the transition from light to darkness takes place along a hard boundary (the contour of the subject).

Some notes, the shadow was taken from a third medium exposure, since that of the bright exposure seems unreliable. The hair comes mainly from the dark image, the light / dark limit crosses the area of ​​the hair closest to the face. This avoids the task of cutting round hair, which can be very complicated. The bright image had to slightly deform with the liquefying tool due to the movement of the subject, some parts of the dark image were shown!

The results are not perfect, but I hope to use the same approach in landscape / architecture photos when I have the opportunity.

dnd 5e: What happens if modifications are made to the base entity while under the effects of a true deleted polymorph?

By a question previously answered, we know that the aim of the spell remains the objective of the spell throughout its duration.

In this case, what happened is that, since the stick is broken, the target has permanently become an invalid target for the spell (now they are two objects instead of one). In particular, none of the sub-portions of the stick is the target of the spell, and therefore the spell cannot be "not suppressed" in either of the two halves of the stick.

You are basically asking for a more general version of Is a spell suppressed or eliminated when the target becomes temporarily invalid?

According to the answer accepted in that question, Jeremy Crawford has tweeted that:

There is no rule that regulates what happens when a valid spell target temporarily becomes an invalid target. A good rule of thumb is that the spell is suppressed while the target is not valid.

So … it depends on the DM!

However, if the target is permanently invalid, there is no great practical difference between the effervescent spell (that is, it effectively dissipates) and the spell is permanently suppressed … unless the magician may attempt to repair the stick after the battle.

dnd 5e: Does forced movement activate the effects of the prismatic wall spell?

The spell of the Prismatic Wall says:

When a creature tries to reach or cross the wall …

A creature forced through the wall (by any means) is not "trying (to pass) through the wall."

Is it therefore immune to its effects?

dnd 5e: What are the effects of "maximizing" the damage in an effect?

In the 5th Edition of D&D, there are some circumstances in which a character's damage could be "maximized."

For example, the Overchannel skill of the Evocation Wizard:

From level 14, you can increase the power of your simplest spells. When you cast a first to fifth level wizard spell that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.

Overchannel, Player Manual, p. 118

Or an entry in the Wild Surge table:

33-34 Maximize the damage of the next damaging spell you cast in the next minute.

Surge of Wild Magic, Player Manual, p. 104

In my view, there are two valid ways to deal with this effect:

  1. Treat the damage dice as if each dice rolls its respective maximum value
  2. Treat the damage as if it were the sum of the maximum values ​​that each possible die could have thrown

These two effects may seem similar, and in most situations they are, but there are some circumstances in which they may be different. For example, for an Attack-Roll-based spell, the damage from interpretation 1 is doubled by a critic, because you are doubling the amount of dice used to calculate the damage; but under interpretation 2, it wouldn't be, because the critical hits don't double the flat damage modifiers, and taking the maximum value of all the dice thrown would make it a flat modifier.

On the contrary, there are spells that depend on a specific value cast on damage dice to change their behavior, as with Chaos Bolt:

You throw an undulating and twisted mass of chaotic energy at a creature within reach. Perform a remote spell attack against the target. In a hit, the target takes 2d8 + 1d6 damage. Choose one of the d8s. The number obtained on that die determines the type of attack damage, as shown below.

If you get the same number in both days, the chaotic energy jumps from the target to a different creature of your choice less than 30 feet from it. Make a new attack roll against the new target, and make a new damage roll, which could cause the chaotic energy to jump again.

Chaos Bolt, Xanathar Guide for Everything, p. 151

Under interpretation 1, Chaos Bolt always deals Thunder damage, and always jumps to a new target in a successful hit, because each of the d8 is treated as if he had each 8. However, under interpretation 2, the d8 are thrown, and then ignored for the purpose of calculating the total damage, because the damage is simply set to the maximum possible value of 22, without setting the values ​​of the individual dice.

Then what is? Is there support for rules to show that Maximize the damage must be handled in one way or another?

Also, since I have raised the spectrum of a spell based on attack roll as Chaos Bolt, the problem of the attack roll itself must also arise: should the attack roll be treated as an automatic (or critical) hit because if you do not, the spell will cause less damage than the maximum? Or does "Maximize" damage only mean damage after a successful attack roll, which means that the attack roll cannot be canceled? For spells that have Salvation Casts, should the objectives of these spells be treated as failing automatically in their Salvation Casts, since if they do not, the spell will not cause maximum damage?

Shell Change Effects

Apple recently changed the default shell to zsh from swipeIn the past I made significant changes in my .bashrc archive. Indicate how to incorporate these changes into the file zsh terminal?

What are the positive effects of social networks?

Hello friends,

What are the positive effects of social networks?

event-based effects: how early does New Orleans begin to fill up with Mardi Gras tourists?

The next Mardi Gras falls on February 25, 2020. I expected to visit New Orleans the previous week (February 16-21). Can I enter and leave the city, find hotels, etc., without getting caught in the craziness of the carnival (crowds, tourist prices, hotel shortages, etc.)? Or is it too close to the holidays and should I find another time to go?

To address the concern raised below in the comments, I will now rephrase my question: How early does New Orleans begin to fill up with Mardi Gras tourists?

Magic items that produce impaired magic spell effects

Does the use of a magic object that produces a spell effect that is hindered on the plane where it occurs require a spell check?

security: what effects would a quantum computer have in Bitcoin?

Worst of cases:

  1. The Bitcoin ECDSA algorithm would be broken. Because quantum computers can easily decrypt the private key using the public key, anyone with a quantum computer can extract Bitcoins using the corresponding public key.

  2. Bitcoin hashing would become exponentially difficult. There is already a predicted escalation in the difficulty of mining due to the advent of ASIC, and quantum computers would create an increase in the difficulty of mining at which the effects of ASIC mining pale in comparison. In the short term, this would lead to hyperinflation, but the long-term effects are not known at this time.

  3. The quantum computer hashing advantage will be limited by the limitations of block mining. To quote from the Bitcoin wiki:

"Difficulty is the measure of how difficult it is to find a new block compared to the easiest it can be. Each 2016 block is recalculated to a value such that the previous 2016 blocks would have been generated exactly in two weeks if all I've been undermining this difficulty. This will produce, on average, one block every ten minutes. As more miners join, the rate of block creation will increase. As the rate of block generation increases, the difficulty increases for offset what will push the block creation rate again. "

This means that the block creation rate will not be affected by quantum computers (the increase in key generation is proportional to the increase in difficulty, resulting in a general extraction rate of 1 bitcoin block every 10 minutes ), but it will drastically increase mining difficulty, exponentially more than what the ASIC miner already has. This gives miners with quantum computers (presumably corporations, government agencies or other power organizations) a great advantage, to the point of being considered a monopoly, in the bitcoin market.

Unless quantum computers:

(a) be available to the public
(b) they are given their own class for hash purposes, in order to limit their mining advantage

So, miners with access to quantum computers have an unfair mining advantage, which can (and will be) used to manipulate the value and distribution of bitcoins. Further,

  1. The hash power of the quantum computer can be used as voting power. If a coalition of people with scalable quantum computers could generate enough hashes to comprise more than 51% of the total Bitcoin hashes, they could use that power to greatly manipulate the bitcoin network.

As explained in the Bitcoin wiki ("Weaknesses")

"An attacker who controls more than 50% of the computing power of the network can, during the time he has control, exclude and modify the order of the transactions. This allows him to:

Inverse transactions that you send while in control. This has the potential to duplicate transactions that had previously been seen in the blockchain.
Prevent some or all transactions from getting confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from removing valid blocks

The attacker cannot:

Reverse other people's transactions
Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
Change the number of coins generated per block
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him 

With less than 50%, the same type of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% success. For example, someone with only 40% of the computing power of the network can overcome a confirmed transaction of 6 depths with a 50% success rate.

It is much harder to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further you go back. As indicated above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the order of transactions. It is impossible to change the blocks created before the last checkpoint. "

But nevertheless:

"Since this attack does not allow so much power over the network, no one is expected to try it. A for-profit person will always earn more simply by following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will." You will probably find other more attractive attacks. However, if this attack is executed successfully, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the created disorder; any change made by the attacker could become permanent. "

That said, is it possible that a scalable quantum computer (especially one that is programmed (such as ASIC) for hash blocks) has an exponential advantage over traditional computers, FPGA, ASICS, etc.?

That question is best addressed here:

There are many maths involved, which is a bit above my academic competence, but we can derive at least this:

Most of the algorithms that quantum computers are famous for using efficiently (Shor's algorithm, Grover's search algorithm) probably cannot be used to chop Bitcoin blocks. A possible exception observed is the collision attack, which if done using the Grover algorithm, could possibly Perform better attacks than conventional computers:

"Can quantum computers perform better collision attacks? Actually, I'm not sure about that. Grover's algorithm can be extended, so if there are t elements (that is, pre-images), the time to find one is reduced to O (N / t −−−− √) But this does not produce a collision: executing the algorithm again could return the same preimage. On the other hand, if we choose m1 at random and then use the Grover algorithm, it is likely that a different message. I'm not sure if this gives better attacks. "

In the event that scalable quantum computers manage to corner the Bitcoin network, a new code will be released to patch this vulnerability, so while there will be a long-term breakdown of the network in the short term, there is nothing to worry about for long-term Bitcoin users.