30 days to create your larger e-mail list for $ 2

30 days to create your larger email list

Now you can achieve tremendous profits and sales with your own responsive e-mail list! Keep reading and discover a simple 30-day plan for a larger email list!

The number one almost every successful online entrepreneur has for them is that they have an email list. This is a list of subscribers who have chosen to get more information from you, get access to free training, or people who have bought something from you.

At some point, we all made our way to an e-mail list. From the largest online retailers to solo salespeople running a business from their living room, email marketing is still the first way to engage with and track your audience.

Social media has definitely changed the game a bit, but email marketing is there to stay. What has changed is how people access their emails. Do not let anyone fool you that email marketing is dead.

In fact, some companies, even large ones, attribute over 75% of their sales directly to email marketing!

If you have an e-mail list and you are creating a product, you have a coaching program, service, physical product, or webinar that you want to tell people about. Then just send an email to your list for instant results! You no longer have to wait for your paid ads to be approved and you no longer have to rely on partners to send you emails.

Paid advertising and affiliates are a great way to generate traffic, but having your own email list is even better! That's why in this guide you'll learn about the same steps in the next 30 days as the experts used to create an e-mail list that will keep you paid!

With 30 days to a larger list, you're well on the way to making big profits online and building the capital you need to keep your income constant. There was a constant in the marketing world, and that's e-mail! You must have an e-mail list if you want to do it!

Instead of subdividing them into chapters as in a normal book, you'll simply make each section of the process a separate section so you can easily follow it!

product conditions
[YES]Can be used for personal use

,

dnd 5e – Can Gate pull a creature larger than 20 feet in each dimension through the portal it creates?

The spell begins with a description of the size of the portal he opens:

You conjure a portal that connects an unoccupied space that you can see within reach with a precise location on another level of existence. ** The portal is a circular opening with a diameter of 5 to 20 feet. **

Then it's about what happens when you summon a creature whose name is known:

When you speak this spell, you can pronounce the name of a particular creature (a pseudonym, a title, or a nickname does not work). If this creature is on a plane other than the one you are in, the The portal opens in the immediate vicinity of the named creature and pulls the creature through to the next free space on your side of the portal.

Although it is not explicitly stated that the size of the portal is significant, it makes sense that portal size is a limiting factor in what can be traversed. You can not drag a creature through a hole that does not fit through it.

But here the rules of squeezing can come to fruition. The squeezing rules very well and that a gigantic creature (the largest size class) should be able to squeeze into the field considering the rules of the size classes of the creatures and the field they control. A Gargantuan can squeeze into a 15×15 space by these rules, but for creatures whose dimensions are listed, it is not unreasonable to consider this in terms of portal size.

We can look at the actual dimensions of the creature in terms of portal size and use the Tarrasque as an example (MM, 286):

The Tarrasque is a scaly biped, fifty feet and seventy feet long and weighing hundreds of tons.

This is a pretty big creature that fits into a 20 "diameter hole.

While the size of creatures is more control-based, these sizes are used in the rules for squeezing. It seems that RAW support for yes (gigantic size can extend through 20-foot spaces) and no (the overall dimensions listed are much larger and it makes no sense) exists, and I would leave it to a DM like you judge the size descriptions based on the size categories at their table to decide.

Oracle – Why does SQL Plus consider a larger number than smaller?

Their quantity columns are not stored as numbers but as strings, which can be B. causes that 10 to be "smaller" than 9 – A string comparison is obviously based on the characters in the string, not integers, so the result you see.

Oracle does not convert the values ​​to numbers when you make a comparison (& # 39;<' and '>& # 39; in your case), but it implicitly converts them into numbers when you perform mathematical operations on them, hence the - works as expected.

If you occupation the VARCHAR Columns to a NUMBER When you make the comparison, your query works correctly:

choose *
from orders
where TO_NUMBER (quantity) <TO_NUMBER (quantity);

However, it is better to recreate your table with the correct data types.

An example of DB Fiddle to demonstrate it all can be found here.

Typography – Use variable fonts to dilute larger headings

I remember that Microsoft Office 2007 introduced a style of headlines that became easier as the headlines grew in size. Now we can use variable fonts in websites. What if you kept the color, but the font weights for each heading vary to get the same effect?

Enter the image description here

Is the hierarchy of the document clear? Is readability better or worse? Does this idea work?

Equation Resolution – How can I speed up my code to find the parameter that yields the zero determinant for ever larger matrices?

I build a quadratic matrix with parameter-dependent matrix elements x, I have to find all the values ​​of x within a reasonable range (say -10 <x <10) so that is the determinant of this matrix 0, My method takes far too long for larger matrices.

First, the matrix elements are constructed from the numerical eigenvalues ​​and eigenvectors of a previous matrix as follows:

specially[a_, b_] : = Own[a, b] =
block[{},
    m = 10; 
    ham = Table[i^2*KroneckerDelta[i, j], {i, -m, m}, {j, -m, m}]+
table[a*KroneckerDelta[i, j + 1], {i, -m, m}, {j, -m, m}]+
table[a*KroneckerDelta[i, j - 1], {i, -m, m}, {j, -m, m}]+
table[b*KroneckerDelta[i, j + 2], {i, -m, m}, {j, -m, m}]+
table[b*KroneckerDelta[i, j - 2], {i, -m, m}, {j, -m, m}];

Sort by[Transpose[Eigensystem[ham, Method -> "Banded"]], First]](* Eigenvalues ​​and functions that will be used later to calculate matrix elements *)

val1[a_, b_, n_] : = val1[a, b, n] = Own[a, b][[n + 1]][[1]](* Eigenvalues ​​*)
func1[a_, b_, n_] : = func1[a, b, n] = Hacking[(1./Sqrt[N[2*Pi]]) * Own[a, b][[n + 1]][[2]]].Table[Exp[I*j*[CurlyPhi]]{j, -m, m}]; (* Sum of exponentials where the coefficients are derived from the eigenvector *)
val2[a_, b_, n_] : = val2[a, b, n] = val1[-a, -b, n] (* Defined as eigenvalues ​​for negative a and b *)
func2[a_, b_, n_] : = func2[a, b, n] = func1[-a, -b, n] (* Same thing but for the function *)

My matrix elements are then calculated val1, val2, func1, and func2 about the following:

me[(a_)?NumericQ, (b_)?NumericQ, c_, x_, k_, l_, p_, q_] : = Block[{}, 
    prefactor = (-2*Pi*c)/(val1[a, b, p] + val2[a, b, q] - x);
numInt = NIntegrate[
                 Chop[func1[a, b, p]* func2[a, b, q]*Conjugate[func1[a, b, k]]*Conjugate[func2[a, b, l]]],
{[CurlyPhi], -Pi, Pi},
Accuracy target -> 10,
Method -> {"GlobalAdaptive", Method -> "GaussKronrodRule", "SymbolicProcessing" -> 0}
];

factor * numInt
]//Chop; 

Is there a better way to do this numeric integral?

Finally, I build my square matrix of size (max + 1) ^ 2 over:

matrix[a_, b_, c_, x_, max_] : = Block[{}, 
    g = Table[excitonMatrixElement[a, b, c, x, i, f, j, k], {i, 0, max}, {f, 0, max}, {j, 0, max}, {k, 0, max}];

h = streamline[ArrayReshape[g, {(max + 1)^2, (max + 1)^2}]-Identitätsmatrix[(max + 1)^2]0]]; 

and I find the values ​​of x (and sort them in ascending order) so that is the determinant 0 with Reduce:

find parameters[a_, b_, c_, max_] : = findParameter[a, b, c, max] =
sort by[N[Reduce[Det[matrix[a, b, c, x, max]]== 0. && -10 <= x <= 10, x, reals]]]

Is there a more efficient way than using Reduce?

My problem is that this method applies to larger and larger matrices path too long. For example while find parameters takes 0,4s for max = 2It scales quickly and when max = 4, find parameters lasts 30s. Ideally, I would like this problem for max = 6 fast, as more calculations currently seem to take hours / days!

Material Design – How to display an error on a larger screen

The Material Design Guidelines contain a section called Error.

For your application, it recommends:

If two or more fields have incompatible entries:

  • In the text box, indicate that a fix is ​​needed. Add an error below.
  • At the top of the form or on the screen, display a message summarizing the required corrections and explanations

This is what it looks like on the phone:

Enter the image description here

I imagine the mass message could appear directly under the heading "sign up".

At snack bars, it continues:

The snack bar contains an app feedback on a peripheral error. Snack bars
are temporary. Do not use for critical, permanent, or mass applications
Error.

1ML shows a larger number of nodes compared to other Lightning network researchers

I've found that 1ML has nearly twice as many nodes as other Lightning network researchers.

I think 1ML does not provide a data source, but can you guess the reason for the difference?

Next to 1ML, the number of nodes is almost the same.

My own c-Lightning nodes show about 4000 commands with the listnodes command, and lightning.chaintools.io uses the GetNetworkInfo-rpc call of lnd according to their source code.

Knot: 7,462
Channels: 39,310
Node: 4.011
Channels: 39,514
Node: 3,941
Channels: 38,983
Knot: 3,971
Channels: 39,201
Node: 3,978
Channels: 39,009

sql server 2008 – Can sp_Blitz, sp_BlitzCache, or sp_BlitzFirst determine which queries resulted in a larger growth operation for a given log file?

You can discover automatic growth events using the standard trace (use my script and tailor it to your needs) – time, size, and number of events.

You can use advanced events – my answer to find out which process caused autogrow.

The only way to find out which process has caused autogrowth is to use extended events. EVENT -> sqlserver.database_file_size_change & sqlserver.databases_log_file_size_changed and ACTION -> sqlserver.sql_text.

Note that since 2008 you only have a limited selection of XEvents. It will be an unsupported version after July 9th. Time for the migration.

Can sp_Blitz, sp_BlitzCache or sp_BlitzFirst determine which queries resulted in a larger growth operation for a given log file?

No, because they analyze what's on the server and do not set up XEvents.

Differential equations – PDE solved by line method. Alert: Scaled local spatial error estimate … much larger than the prescribed fault tolerance

I use the line method to solve the PDE

    D[a[t, r]t, t]+ 3/2 1 / t * D[a[t, r]t]-
10 / t * D[a[t, r]r, r]-
10 / t * 2 / rD[a[t, r]r]+ (t / 10) ^ 4 * Sin[a[t, r]]== 0,

with the initial conditions

on[10, r] ==
4 (ArcTan[Exp[(r - R0)]]+ ArcTan[Exp[(-r - R0)]])
derivative[1, 0][a][10, r]    == 0,
derivative[0, 1][a][t, ri]    == 0,

The domain is

{r, ri, 3R0 + ri}, {t, 10,32}

from where R0 = 10, The theoretical value of ri is 0but to avoid the singularity 1 / ri In the PDE I choose ri as a very small number, eg. ri = 10 ^ (- 4),

The solution is like "a wall" from which you move r = R0 to r = ri = 10 ^ (- 4) With t increase, and the wall becomes steeper and wavy.

The method I use to solve the PDE is the line method

Method -> {"MethodOfLines", "TemporalVariable" -> t,
"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"TensorProductGrid", "Coordinates" ->
{Mygrid}}}

I define "mygrid" so that I can have more points in the discretization of the spatial dimension (r). I try to spread more points in the steep part. For example:

Rmiddle6m = 0.1; Rmiddle5m = 0.2; Rmiddle4m = 0.5; Rmiddle3m = 1;
Rmiddle2m = 2; Rmiddle1m = 3; Rmiddle0 = 4; Rmiddle1 = 5; Rmiddle2 = 6;
Rmiddle3 = 8;

mygrid = streamline[ Join[ri + Range[0, 
Rmiddle6m*1500]/ 1500, ri + Rmiddle6m + range[1, (Rmiddle5m - 
Rmiddle6m)*1500]/ 1500, ri + Rmiddle5m + range[1, (Rmiddle4m - 
Rmiddle5m)*1200]/ 1200, ri + Rmiddle4m + range[1, (Rmiddle3m - 
Rmiddle4m)*1000]/ 1000, ri + Rmiddle3m + range[1, (Rmiddle2m - 
Rmiddle3m)*600]/ 600, ri + Rmiddle2m + range[1, (Rmiddle1m - 
Rmiddle2m)*300]/ 300, ri + Rmiddle1m + range[1, (Rmiddle0 - 
Rmiddle1m)*80]/ 80, ri + Rmiddle0 + range[1, (Rmiddle1 - 
Rmiddle0)*50]/ 50, ri + Rmiddle1 + Range[1, (Rmiddle2 - 
Rmiddle1)*30]/ 30, ri + Rmiddle2 + Range[1, (Rmiddle3 - 
Rmiddle2)*20]/ 20, ri + Rmiddle3 + Range[1, (3 R0 - Rmiddle3)*10]/ 10]]

It works as long as the solution is not so steep. But with t increased (the wall becomes steeper), a warning message appears:
The scaled local spatial error estimate of … at t = … in the direction of the independent variable r is much larger than the given error tolerance.

I think the warning message means that I did not solve the PDE exactly. Any ideas to avoid the problem? Or is there another method than methodoflines to solve this PDE? Many thanks!

Asymptotics – meaning of polynomial larger or smaller in the context of the master method

I'm studying the Master method to solve repetitions and have a decent mathematical background, but I'm having trouble understanding that n ^ logb (a) is polynomial less than or greater than f (n).

In my class slides about the master method, the first example uses the repetition T (n) = 4T (n / 2) + 1 and suggests the possibility that case 1 holds. n ^ logb (a) would be n ^ 2 and f (n) would be 1.

The foil indicates that f (n) is NOT polynomially smaller than n ^ 2. However, I do not understand this, because if you take an epsilon less than one and greater than zero, like 1/2, and you subtract that epsilon from n ^ 2, you would have n ^ 1.5 that would be even greater than f (n) which is one, for every n greater than one. So how is this not an example of being polynomially smaller?