We just started a group and the DM said it would be easier than his last time and we were like “Ok” and we were in a forest and he sent 8 giants at us, at once! We barely made it out alive. He the said there was a village just 5 minutes from here. We started traveling up that way. When we reach the village, he said that it was partly destroyed. We wander in even more and he sends 12 giants at us! Why does he keep doing this, and how do I get him to stop?
How do I kill
openerp so that
odoo can run correctly?
nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ ps aux | grep openerp nicholas 75353 0.0 0.0 17528 880 pts/0 S+ 18:46 0:00 grep --color=auto openerp nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ ps aux | grep openerp nicholas 75356 0.0 0.0 17528 880 pts/0 S+ 18:46 0:00 grep --color=auto openerp nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ ps aux | grep openerp nicholas 75358 0.0 0.0 17528 880 pts/0 S+ 18:46 0:00 grep --color=auto openerp nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ lsof -i :880 nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ ps aux | grep openerp nicholas 75388 0.0 0.0 17528 880 pts/0 S+ 18:48 0:00 grep --color=auto openerp nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ kill 17528 bash: kill: (17528) - No such process nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ kill 75388 bash: kill: (75388) - No such process nicholas@mordor:~$ nicholas@mordor:~$ ps aux | grep openerp nicholas 75394 0.0 0.0 17528 816 pts/0 S+ 18:49 0:00 grep --color=auto openerp nicholas@mordor:~$
I was going through the concept of reaching definitions from the red dragon book.
The authors define reaching definitions as follows:
Definition: We say a definition $d$ reaches a point $p$ if there is a path from the point immediately following $d$ to $p$, such that $d$ is not “killed” along that path.
Then the authors consider a flow graph and explain the definition with an example as follows:
For example, both the definitions
j:=nin block $B_1$ in Fig. above reach the beginning of block $B_2$, as does the definition
j:=j-1, provided there are no assignments to or reads of
jin $B_4$, $B_5$, or the portion of $B_3$ following that definition.
I can understand that in $B_4$, $B_5$, or the portion of $B_3$ following that definition
j:=j-1 if there is an assignment to
j then the definition $d_5$ is killed. But what problem shall be there if there is simply a read of the value
j? How does it kill the definition $d_5$ and prevent it from reaching the top of $B_2$?
I’m running ESXi 6.5 embedded host client. When i ssh into the system I can run
esxcli vm process list and get the expected output:
testserver1 World ID: 67909 Process ID: 0 VMX Cartel ID: 67908 UUID: someuuid Display Name: testserver1 Config File: /vmfs/volumes/somelocation/testserver1/testserver1.vmx
But if i run
esxcli vm process kill –t=soft –w=67909 I get the error
Error: Unknown command or namespace vm process kill –t=soft –w=67909
To confirm i’m running the correct command, i ran
esxcli vm process kill -help and get
Error: Invalid option -h Usage: esxcli vm process kill (cmd options) Description: kill Used to forcibly kill Virtual Machines that are stuck and not responding to normal stop operations. Cmd options: -t|--type=<str> The type of kill operation to attempt. There are three types of VM kills that can be attempted: (soft, hard, force). Users should always attempt 'soft' kills first, which will give the VMX process a chance to shutdown cleanly (like kill or kill -SIGTERM). If that does not work move to 'hard' kills which will shutdown the process immediately (like kill -9 or kill -SIGKILL). 'force' should be used as a last resort attempt to kill the VM. If all three fail then a reboot is required. (required) -w|--world-id=<long> The World ID of the Virtual Machine to kill. This can be obtained from the 'vm process list' command (required)
Can you see anything i’m doing wrong that might be preventing this command from working?
I realize there’s
vim-cmd alternative in docs but i’m trying to figure out why the first option from the docs is responding like it’s not even a valid command.
How can I get macrodroid to close an app when I disconnect from a bluetooth device (close waze when I disconnect from my vehicle )
I have been expanding a download library, in which I want to store its progress by writing the accumulated bytes to a database before its overarching application gets killed, either through error or shutdown or whatever. I had inquired about whether its destructor would be run when I close an application. I did not get a clear answer however, and said it was heavily dependent upon the signal being sent, and was linked to this library here: https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/atexit/
I went to my task manager and quickly wrote down all the signals I could send an application, them being:
- STOP – Suspend
- CONT – Continue
- HUP – Hangup
- INT – Interrupt
- TERM – Terminate
- KILL – Kill
- USR1 – User 1
- USR2 – User 2
- Are these signals synonymous with the signals found here https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/317496/79280
and from typing
man 7 signal? If so, why are these ones most likely picked specifically to be included in my task manager, omitting the others?
- Broadly speaking, how do each one of these signals interact with your application?
- Of these signals, which will call a destructor?
- When programming for them, do the libraries such as https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/atexit/ exist only in std::lib, or does Qt, Boost, etc have their own implementations and means of dealing with such?
- Are there any signals here which you can not program for? Why or Why not?
- Is there any literature, or standards, or coding styles which account for how one should treat these signals inside your program?
some sort of sql process makes my database server to consume 100% of the cpu, Is there any option to kill the particular process automatically if it is consuming a particular value of cpu ?
Think of it this way:
This particular kind of game is a bunch of prompts and levers to help you to (1)work together, (2)in the moment, to build compelling fiction.
This style of play still has room for prep work (e.g. coming up with interesting locations and characters outside of play, and mapping out how they fit together — your “fronts” or “threats”) but you’re not prepping what happens, because everyone is going to be working together to decide what happens (c.f. “play to find out what happens”).
On top of that, this specific thing — the fate of the player characters: boom, dead in the ground, all together, finito, the end — is a very extreme outcome. Their physical state and survival is a major locus of narrative tension in all those combat scenes and adventures. Keeping that tension going without anyone suddenly, clumsily snapping the thread and de-facto ending the game isn’t just the goal of the game mechanics, it’s also the goal of the conversation — the other players won’t let you.
Just forcing through won’t work. (You may “win,” but it’s going to be ugly and tedious getting there.)
So, instead: have a different conversation.
Alright. Imagine you’re all writers on Star Trek or something, and you want to make that episode where the Enterprise blows up and then everything gets reset over and over again by Time Particles until they figure out how to stop it from blowing up. And you walk into the writers’ room and you say: “I’ve got it! The Enterprise blows up. Everyone’s dead.”
Okay. Aaand? You need to give them more or they can’t actually help you write it. Even to just write that “Enterprise blows up” scene before you get to all the Time Particle stuff, they need more information or it’s going to come out wrong — you’re in “Surprise! The end… or is it? Haha!” first-act mode and they’re in last-act “Well, this is the end, bring out the big guns and really earn it” mode. Doesn’t work.
Holding your cards close to your chest for the sake of the cool surprise works when you’re presenting the story for an audience, it doesn’t work when you’re co-creators who need to build the story together. (And, even then, your audience understands narrative cues, too, so when you kill the entire crew of the Enterprise five minutes into the episode, they absolutely know you that’s just the hook and you’re not suddenly going to roll credits and fill up the rest of the hour with a Kung Fu rerun.)
No, what you do is you sell your big twist as part of your pitch. “I’ve got it! The Enterprise blows up. Everyone’s dead. And then it happens again and again and again.” Now you’re on the same page and you can work out the details together.
There are a lot of approaches you can take.
You could just tell them straight-up. This is what you want to happen, here’s why, let’s work together to build it. You might actually have an absolute blast with this because the players can suspend the usual stakes and work together to describe cool stuff about their dramatic-but-temporary demise.
You could hide your big twist a little bit and still get buy-in. Just say “Hey, can I take over the storytelling for a few minutes, I’ve got a big twist idea that’ll be worth your while, I promise?” — Just be prepared for them to say “No.” (Or “Why??”)
You could even loop them into it more directly. One example is “Gamechangers” in (another PBTA game) Apocalypse World: Burned Over, which has everyone agree to a narrative or procedural twist (anything from opening up a new part of the setting to “we rotate GMs now” or “we change game systems”) that’s unlocked by players spending advances.
I honestly think the finer differences between specific choices aren’t that important here. Just recognize this:
- You are defying the normal flow and goals of the fiction-building conversation at the table — that’s a problem for the group (you pushing one way while the other players, unknowingly, push the other way) rather than just you vs. game mechanics.
- The problem will almost-magically disappear as soon as you and the other players get on the same page about this deviation from how the game normally works.
I have custom shortcuts on my home screen. Tap one and it presents a menu to choose an action — except pretty often it doesn’t. It simply doesn’t get executed.
In iOS 13 I got funneled to the Shortcuts app whenever I tapped these, and could always see that the app was executing them. Not so much in iOS 14, which means I have no choice but to assume that some invisible instance of my shortcut is still alive and preventing execution, or, considering multiple different shortcuts stop working at the same time, assume that some shortcut daemon/ interpreter is unresponsive.
If that’s the case, how do I kill it or reset it? Killing the Shortcuts app does not help. Short of rebooting the phone, is there a trick to reset this faulty component?
Update: Only the home screen shortcut icons are unresponsive apparently. The shortcuts can be executed manually in-app.
Emptying memory by pressing and holding the home button on the Slide to Power Off screen has no effect.
I am trying to
ssh to an Ubuntu 18.04 server, and it is unresponsive.
But it responds to
I suspect it has a running process (actually two instances of
myprog), which are trying to write to disk, and disk is full.
I have my home dir in the same partition as
ssh myserver 'ps -ef | grep myprog'
with the expectation of then killing those processes.
But this command is not responding either.
Is there any way to try this? Or anything else?
I mean not to have to physically go to the console (which is in a remote location).