## html – El header se monta sobre el main si lo pongo fixed

Si pongo el header fixed, lo que sigue se pone abajo y no se ve/lee, y si a esto le pongo margen, todo se mueve en conjunto, y sigue estando abajo. Lo que deseo es scrolear por la página y que el banner y menú se sigan viendo.

``````<body>
<div class="banner" id="banner">
<img src="./img/bannerKup.jpg" alt="KupEntrenamientos">
</div>
<div class="container0" id="containernav">

<a href="#Ejercicios">Ejercicios</a>
<a href="#Artículos">Artículos</a>
<a href="#Contacto">Contacto</a>

</div>

<div class="main">
<section class="container1" id="Ejercicios">
``````

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Quaerat illum totam optio, earum pariatur necessitatibus quia minus quam dolorem veritatis perspiciatis. Molestiae reprehenderit eos, obcaecati hic culpa recusandae in voluptatum.

``````      </section>

<section class="container2" id="Artículos">
<h1>Artículos</h1>
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Quaerat illum totam optio, earum pariatur necessitatibus quia minus quam dolorem veritatis perspiciatis. Molestiae reprehenderit eos, obcaecati hic culpa recusandae in voluptatum.</p>
</section>

<section class="container3" id="Contacto">
<h1>Contacto</h1>
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Quaerat illum totam optio, earum pariatur necessitatibus quia minus quam dolorem veritatis perspiciatis. Molestiae reprehenderit eos, obcaecati hic culpa recusandae in voluptatum.</p>
</section>
</div>
``````

LINK PORQUE NO SE COMO AGREGAR EL CSS APARTE
https://jsbin.com/lubezofoho/edit?html,css,output

## javascript – When I load homepage of my WordPress Website, the three main categories of homepage are loading vertically after fixing the speed of the site

javascript – When I load homepage of my WordPress Website, the three main categories of homepage are loading vertically after fixing the speed of the site – Software Engineering Stack Exchange

## graphs – Articulation vertices main method modification

graphs – Articulation vertices main method modification – Computer Science Stack Exchange

## design – What are the benefits of having database in separate instance to main application?

Database systems generally don’t have fixed overheads – for instance, a table or index can be loaded from disk on demand or stored in RAM, with the same result but different performance. As such, many database systems are designed to make maximum use of available resources – they will claim as much RAM as allowed from the OS in advance and manage it internally, and assume they can use whatever CPU cores exist.

That strategy means they don’t “play nicely” with other applications on the same instance, particularly those with unpredictable resource needs. You can set a limit for what the database preallocates, but set it too low and you waste resources, set it too high and your other applications can’t deal with short bursts in demand.

Running two instances frees you from worrying about that conflict, and lets you pick appropriate resources for each part.

## Why my nginx conf file redirects subdomains to main domain?

I have removed all files from `/etc/nginx/sites-enabled/` directory.

I have also removed all files from `/etc/nginx/sites-available/` directory.

I only have one file in `/etc/nginx/conf.d/` called `my-domain-name.com.conf` and it contains:

``````server {
listen 80;
server_name my-domain-name.com www.my-domain-name.com;
return 301 https://\$server_name\$request_uri;
}

server {
listen 443 ssl;
server_name my-domain-name.com www.my-domain-name.com;

ssl_certificate /etc/letsencrypt/live/my-domain-name.com/fullchain.pem;
ssl_certificate_key /etc/letsencrypt/live/my-domain-name.com/privkey.pem;

include /etc/letsencrypt/options-ssl-nginx.conf;

location / {
proxy_pass http://localhost:4000;
}
}
``````

I proxy traffic to a docker container that listens on port 4000.

It works great for `my-domain-name.com` and `www.my-domain-name.com`.

However, it also redirects ALL of my subdomains that have been defined in DNS.

This is not the intended behavior. I only want this file to serve these two domains, not more.

What is wrong here?

## blockchain fork – Choosing main chain based on difficulty

If a node observes a fork in the bitcoin chain, then the node will choose the chain that has the highest difficulty (sum of `difficulty` in each block of the chain).

But the `difficulty` changes only once every 2016 blocks. So, if a fork occurs somewhere in between, then the `difficulty` is the same for both the side chains right? How does the node pick the main chain then? Just randomly?

You can use like this below way :

``````<?php

/**
* See COPYING.txt for license details.
*/

namespace VendorModulePlugin;

use MagentoFrameworkDataTreeNodeFactory;
use MagentoFrameworkUrlInterface;

/**
* @var NodeFactory
*/
protected \$nodeFactory;

/**
* @var UrlInterface
*/
protected \$urlBuilder;

/**
* @param NodeFactory  \$nodeFactory
* @param UrlInterface \$urlBuilder
*/
public function __construct(
NodeFactory \$nodeFactory,
UrlInterface \$urlBuilder
) {
\$this->nodeFactory = \$nodeFactory;
\$this->urlBuilder = \$urlBuilder;
}

public function beforeGetHtml(
\$outermostClass = '',
\$childrenWrapClass = '',
\$limit = 0
) {
/**
*/
(
'idField' => 'id',
)
);
/**
*/
\$this->nodeFactory->create(
(
'idField' => 'id',
)
)
);
}

protected function getNodeAsArray(\$name, \$id) {
\$url = \$this->urlBuilder->getUrl(\$id);
return (
'name' => __(\$name),
'id' => \$id,
'url' => \$url,
'has_active' => false,
'is_active' => false,
);
}
}
``````

Reference

## real analysis – Main utility of the monotonicity formula for generalized surfaces

A basic answer is that “the monotonicity formula places constraints on the shape of a minimal surface” e.g., you cannot have a lot of area concentrated in a ball if then later there is a (relatively) small amount of area. This, along with the convex hull property, already tells you a lot about the possible shape of a minimal surface.

However, I think you are looking for a concrete application. Here is one sample application that is somewhat different from what I have described above:

Suppose that $$Sigma_i,Sigma subset B_2(0) subset mathbb{R}^3$$ are smooth embedded minimal surfaces and for any $$f in C^0_c(B_2(0))$$ it holds that
$$tag{*} int_{Sigma_i} f|_{Sigma_i} to int_Sigma f|_Sigma$$
as $$itoinfty$$ (this is a very weak notion of convergence of surfaces). Then, if $$x_i in Sigma_icap B_1(0)$$ has $$x_ito x$$ then $$xinSigma$$.

Proof: Assume $$xnot in Sigma$$. Then, there is $$B_{3epsilon}(x)$$ disjoint from $$Sigma$$. Choose a bump function $$f=1$$ on $$B_{2epsilon}(x)$$ and $$f$$ vanishing outside of $$B_{3epsilon}(x)$$. Now, by (*) we have that
$$int_{Sigma_i} f|_{Sigma_i}to 0.$$
Thus, for $$i$$ large, $$B_{epsilon}(x_i)subset B_{2epsilon}(x)$$, so we have arranged that
$$|Sigma_icap B_epsilon(x_i)|leq int_{Sigma_i} f|_{Sigma_i} to 0.$$
On the other hand the monotonicity formula implies that
$$frac{|Sigma_icap B_epsilon(x_i)|}{pi epsilon^2} geq lim_{rto0}frac{|Sigma_icap B_r(x_i)|}{pi r^2} = 1$$
since $$Sigma_i$$ is smooth (and thus nearly flat on small scales). This is a contradiction.

Note that if the $$Sigma_i$$ are not minimal (i.e., if they don’t satisfy the monotonicity formula), it is easy to find a counterexample to the above result by taking a flat disk $$Sigma$$ and forming $$Sigma_i$$ by gluing on a lot of “tentacles” which all have small area (and thus small contribution to the integral as in (*)). Thus, this is a nontrivial result.

(Note that I have not attempted to prove the most general version of this result, if you want you might see Simon’s GMT book or other sources on minimal surfaces.)

There are many related applications of the monotonicity formula. A simple yet powerful one consists of White’s proof of the Allard regularity theorem. See Section 1.1 here https://annals.math.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/annals-v161-n3-p07.pdf or Theorem 7.8 here http://web.stanford.edu/~ochodosh/MinSurfNotes.pdf).

## mining profitability – what is a miner’s main source of income

Any service a miner offers which is not related to or benefited by their being a miner should be ignored, because this is external and unrelated to mining: anyone can run such a service, and likewise a miner could choose to; or not.

There are some services that a miner could run that are miner-specific, but note that since such services are economic transactions which generally occur in private (ie between the miner and the customer), it is difficult to say how much revenue they may bring in. As an example, a miner could offer a service to mine transactions that are not broadcast to the network before they are included in a block. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that any transaction in a block was such included via such a paid service, unless you were the miner or the customer.

So anyways, the thing we can be most sure about, is the block reward and the transaction fees. This is because that information is necessarily public: the first transaction in each block is called the coinbase transaction, and it includes all of that information.

So you can find this information for yourself, just by looking at the reward and transaction fees included in each block through history.

The block reward is halved every 210,000 blocks, currently it is 12.5 BTC. The transaction fees vary depending on how much users are paying to have their transactions included in new blocks (generally, more transactions means high fees), but right now (and for a good portion of bitcoin’s history) transaction fees are a small part of the total mining reward.

As an example of a busy time on the network: in block 500,439 the transaction fees (~13.01 BTC) exceeded the block reward (12.5 BTC), and many blocks in that range have very high fees as well. To my knowledge that block is the only time the block reward has been less than the transaction fees, but maybe somebody else here knows better (I’m excluding blocks with ‘erroneous’ transactions which included unnecessarily large amounts of BTC as their transaction fee, at least).