## This Should Work

Since Dual Thrower works with the strikes form Double Slice as it allows you to substitute in a ranged weapon strike for a melee weapon strike for any feat that is obtained as part of the Dual-Weapon Warrior archetype.

So, Double Slice and Dual Thrower: check.

Now, looking at Flensing Slice, we see that the Requirement for it is simply “Your last action was a Double Slice, and both attacks hit the target.” It doesn’t specify that the attacks had to be melee, just that they had to hit. After meeting that requirement, the meat of the feat states:

The target takes 1d8 persistent bleed damage per weapon damage die of
whichever of the weapons you used that has the most weapon damage dice
(maximum 4d8 for a major striking weapon). The target becomes
flat-footed, and its resistances to any physical damage types are
reduced by 5; these two effects last until the beginning of your next
turn.

Again, no requirement for melee weapons. So the chain is just so: You use Double Slice. Dual Thrower allows you to substitute your bombs for those attacks. Both of those attacks hit, and since your last action was Double Slice and they both hit, you can use Flensing Slice.

Yes, considering the imagery of flensing with a bladed weapon, it seems odd to somehow do that with a thrown one, but flensing is simply stripping off skin (or blubber), which a good explosion or acid bath can do. Don’t let the “Slice” part of Flensing Slice throw you either – the names often take artistic license, and are not meant to restrict (or add to) the actual crunch. For example, the spell Grease gets a lot of attention because some people insist that the resulting grease should be flammable because grease often is. But, similar to D&D 5e, things do what they say they do – no more, no less. So flensing strike does damage, imposes flat-footed, and reduces physical resistance. That’s it. It doesn’t necessarily flense or slice – all of that is just fluff, and thus easily changeable without affecting balabnce.

## feats – Can I make a Flensing Slice the round after I make the Double Slice that qualifies for it?

So… this is mostly about the Dual Weapon Warrior archetype. Double Slice is a two-diamond action that lets you strike twice. Flensing Slice is a one-diamond action that lets you do bad things to the target as long as your last action was a double slice in which you attacked them twice and hit both times. Now, by the narrative, it seems like the flensing strike was intended to occur in the same round as the double slice, but I don’t see anything in the rules that would require that. Am I missing something? Is it possible to double slice in one round, and then (assuming that you don’t perform any reactions or other actions in between) flensing slice as your first action of the following round?

## Is the block header in stratum protocol double hashed?

I’m trying to understand how the block header is done when mining in a stratum pool. Should the block header be hashed once or double hashed ?

the block header consists of the version, previous hash, merkle root, ntime, nbit, and nonce. right?

## How many combinations of 5 double sided figures?

My daughter has a shirt with 5 unicorns printed on. The unicorns have double sided sequin manes which one side is rainbow (of course) and the other side is gold. We are wondering in how many combinations these unicorns can be arranged? I have forgotten the equation, so i tried to sketch as many as I could think of and I got 32. Your help is very much appreciated.
All sequin combo
All gold combo
Hand sketch 32 combos

## sequences and series – Does existence of both double limits imply boundedness?

Let $$(a_{n,m})_{ninmathbb N,,min mathbb N}$$ be a double sequence taking real values. We may consider different types of limit:

1. $$lim_{ntoinfty,,mtoinfty} a_{n,m} = l_1inmathbb R,$$ if for every $$epsilon>0$$ there exists $$N_epsiloninmathbb N$$ such that $$min(n,m)>N_epsilonRightarrow|a_{n,m}-l_1|;
2. $$lim_{||(n,m)||toinfty} a_{n,m} = l_2inmathbb R,$$ if for every $$epsilon>0$$ there exists $$N_epsiloninmathbb N$$ such that $$max(n,m)>N_epsilonRightarrow|a_{n,m}-l_2|;
3. $$lim_{ntoinfty}(lim_{mtoinfty} a_{n,m}) = l_3inmathbb R$$ if for every $$epsilon>0$$
• for every $$ninmathbb N$$ there exist $$L_ninmathbb R$$ and $$M_{epsilon,n}inmathbb N$$ such that $$m>M_{epsilon,n}Rightarrow|a_{n,m}-L_n|
• there exist $$N_epsiloninmathbb N$$ such that $$n>N_epsilonRightarrow|L_n-l_3| ;
4. $$lim_{mtoinfty}(lim_{ntoinfty} a_{n,m}) = l_4inmathbb R$$ if for every $$epsilon>0$$
• for every $$mgeq M_epsilon$$ there exist $$Lambda_minmathbb R$$ and $$N_{epsilon,m}inmathbb N$$ such that $$n>N_{epsilon,m}Rightarrow|a_{n,m}-Lambda_m|
• there exist $$M_epsiloninmathbb N$$ such that $$m>M_epsilonRightarrow|Lambda_m-l_4| ;

In
What is the definition of double sequence \$a_{mn}\$ being convergent to \$l\$?
it is shown that convergence 1. does not ensure that the sequence $$(a_{n,m})_{n,minmathbb N}$$ is bounded.

Convergence 2. should be enough to guarantee that $$(a_{n,m})_{n,minmathbb N}$$ is bounded.

My question is : convergence 3. together with convergence 4. (with $$l_3neq l_4$$ in general) suffice to guarantee $$(a_{n,m})_{n,minmathbb N}$$ bounded?

Notice that in the definitions of double limits 3. and 4. I have assumed existence of the first limit for every value of the second index, in order to avoid problems similar to those appearing here What is the definition of double sequence \$a_{mn}\$ being convergent to \$l\$?

## bitcoin core – How to Double Your Net Worth With Cryptocurrencies In The Next 12 Months?

Central banks are printing currency like there’s no tomorrow.

Gold briefly surpassed the 2010 all time high.

That’s no coincidence. And this trend is likely to continue.

My friend Dirk has been in the crypto market since 2015 and he’s put
together a no cost training where he breaks down how he thinks
Cryptocurrencies (specifically altcoins) are about to go absolutely nuts.

He also shows how it’s possible to DOUBLE your entire net worth with a
small, single-digit percentage of your new worth bet on cryptocurrencies.

Yes, it’s completely possible, but the catch is that it’s time
sensitive. If you wait too long, the market may already be much higher
and you’ll miss out on huge potential gains.

Don’t miss this, there’s not long left and it could literally change your life.

Go watch Dirk’s training here now (it’s free).
Here’s the training https://intelligentcryptocurrencys.blogspot.com

## iptables – Double VPN not working

I have setup OpenVpn in my raspberry pi and it works correctly, I can log in to my raspberry pi from my cellphone.
The problem comes when I activate my paid vpn (windscribe) with windscribe connect.
After that I can no longer reach my raspberry with my cellphone.

I’ve been trying a lot with the iptables with no success, crating forward rules for interfaces, tunnels, and a lot of combinations, but nothing seems to work. At the end I reset everything.

here are my configurations.

sudo iptables -t nat -S
-P PREROUTING ACCEPT
-P INPUT ACCEPT
-P POSTROUTING ACCEPT
-P OUTPUT ACCEPT
-A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o wlan0 -m comment --comment openvpn-nat-rule -j MASQUERADE
-A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE

pi@raspberrypi:~ \$ sudo iptables -S
-P INPUT ACCEPT
-P FORWARD ACCEPT
-P OUTPUT DROP
-A OUTPUT ! -o tun+ -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT ! -o tun+ -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 10.0.0.0/8 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 172.16.0.0/12 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 104.20.26.217/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 104.20.27.217/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 172.67.17.175/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 104.21.93.29/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 172.67.203.127/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 104.21.53.216/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 172.67.219.39/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 172.67.189.40/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 104.21.65.74/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -o tun+ -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 127.0.0.1/32 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -d 209.58.129.121/32 -j ACCEPT

pi@raspberrypi:~ \$ ifconfig
ether b8:27:eb:ec:6a:4b  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
RX packets 19989  bytes 21885907 (20.8 MiB)
RX errors 160  dropped 4  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 11508  bytes 1206589 (1.1 MiB)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING>  mtu 65536
loop  txqueuelen 1000  (Local Loopback)
RX packets 618  bytes 201828 (197.0 KiB)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 618  bytes 201828 (197.0 KiB)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

tun0: flags=4305<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
inet 10.8.0.1  netmask 255.255.255.0  destination 10.8.0.1
unspec 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00  txqueuelen 100  (UNSPEC)
RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

tun1: flags=4305<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
inet 10.120.138.29  netmask 255.255.254.0  destination 10.120.138.29
unspec 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00  txqueuelen 100  (UNSPEC)
RX packets 164  bytes 32755 (31.9 KiB)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 961  bytes 114896 (112.2 KiB)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

ether b8:27:eb:b9:3f:1e  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

pi@raspberrypi:~ \$ ip route list
0.0.0.0/1 via 10.120.138.1 dev tun1
default via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.0.111 metric 202
10.8.0.0/24 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1
10.120.138.0/23 dev tun1 proto kernel scope link src 10.120.138.29
128.0.0.0/1 via 10.120.138.1 dev tun1
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.0.111 metric 202
209.58.129.121 via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0

pi@raspberrypi:~ \$ ip rule list
0:      from all lookup local
32766:  from all lookup main
32767:  from all lookup default

## url rewriting – Double domain name in category URL-s

You can “workaround” the issue with a redirect in .htaccess, although it’s not clear why this double-domain-URL would be accessible in the first place.

So, we can redirect URLs of the form example.com/example.com/?cat=6 to example.com/?cat=6, which you then say is correctly redirected to example.com/category by WordPress.

For example, at the top of your .htaccess file:

RewriteRule ^(?:www.)?example.com/(.*) /\$1 (R=301,L)

This basically removes example.com (or www.example.com) from the start of the URL-path. Any query string that was present on the initial request (eg. cat=6) is passed through to the target URL by default.

Test first with a 302 (temporary) redirect to avoid potential caching issues.

## google – The QUERY is giving double results on a single cell

I recently started to use QUERY’s on google sheets I just encounter a problem where after typing my query

=QUERY(‘Copy of TEST’!A1:E7,”select A, sum(D)
group by A”)

Is compounding the A1 row with the Title of my columns (in this case is “Service Type Updates”), and the row A2 that belongs to the first service (“Consultation”).

Service Type Updates Consultations sum Tier 1 1

I have tried everything adding an extra row between those to rows but nothing.

Thank You, whoever can help me.