So my group is playing a campaign of God and my character has divine rank 1. I chose to alter the size as my divine ability, but one of the advantages of being a literal god is that I can teleport at will as free action. So my question is, during combat, if I use alter size to reduce the size of a pinhead, and I teleport WITHIN an enemy, then I use alter size again to expand enough to basically explode his body … how could you calculate that exactly ……
I have a 225 GB database with a 390 GB log file, which has recently exploded in size. I am trying to reduce it, according to these instructions: https://www.brentozar.com/blitz/transaction-log-larger-than-data-file/
I cannot reduce it in SSMS or by using the DBCC SHRINKFILE command. I tried to wait until it was not in use, and I also tried a registry backup and then ran DBCC SHRINKFILE again, but it was in vain. Any ideas on what I can do?
I saw in this article (https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertutorial/3311/how-to-shrink-the-transaction-log/) that it says you could try changing the recovery model to Simple, run the shrink, then change it back to Full, but that seems risky, so be careful to try.
It is also worth noting that my database is duplicated and currently stuck in a suspended state.
I wonder if you could give any advice. We are your typical store without DBA, so I appreciate any suggestions or suggestions from beginners. Thank you!
TL; DR: Both methods can work. Contraction It is more logical but has less visibility due to the user's finger. Growing It does not correspond to the expectations of real life but the interaction is better visible.
Instinctively, I would always prefer a button to shrinkage, how you are pressing down And that corresponds to the perception of the real world.
The only problem that can arise with this is that the finger then covers the button And the user can no longer see what happens to him. So the growth method has the advantage of better visibility.
Google's Materials Design Guidelines mention elevation and how it helps the user to understand the order of the user interface elements.
They have a section that talks about raised buttons and these should go up when you press. There is an interesting discussion about this here:
Material design – buttons go up, do not depress
Personally I do not agree with that decision, as it is totally counterintuitive.
Here is another question that could be related to yours:
Make people understand that they can click on a button in a flat design
At the end, You can probably achieve both methods As long as you design them attractive enough and understandable enough.
I have found a variant of the backpack problem with articles that shrink.
Indeed, it is a 0-1 backpack problem where the initial weight of each item is W (n) + V (n) and its value is V (N), but immediately after placing it in the container, the item is reduced by W (north). This means that for each item IN the backpack, the weight and value are the same. (Therefore, it is also possible to see this as a irrelevant irrelevant 0-1 "stuffed" backpack irrelevant to the value).
Therefore, in this case, you must also determine the correct order of the elements to be inserted and whether a specific element is legal in the combination before placing it in the container.
I have already determined that the order of insertion, given a valid collection, should be based on W (n) + V (n) descending, but so far I can not create a set of valid collections in anything below O (2 ^ north) .
The dynamic programming solutions are failing me due to the apparent interdependence of the elements that makes memorization seem impossible.
I realize that I have not given much here, but I really might need some help. How is this variant addressed?
If it's funny, the real application is that we have a lot of different electrical devices that cause a known overload when they turn on and then they extract a certain amount of energy. We never want to trigger a switch, so we must take into account the increase in voltage to determine how many we can activate at the most.