## Do you have a Geometry3D object that represents an artificial satellite?

Similar to the Mathematica command:

``````    example data[{"Geometry3D", "SpaceShuttle"}]
``````

Do you have something similar that creates an artificial satellite (a vehicle orbiting the Earth)?

## Usability – represents a network delay in retrieving the status of a network object

Backstory

I'm working on a surveillance view of a network management system. The system allows the user to deploy a network object in a client environment. This monitor view then displays the current status of the objects, beginning with the creation of network resources for this object deployment.

The different states we have are:
Create, Build, Deploy, Run, Not optimal, Errors, Erase, and Erase

The monitoring view consumes data from two different systems (using individual APIs) that switch from one system to another based on the current state of the network object.

Let's say System A (sA) specifies the states Create, Create, Provide, Delete and Delete. and system B (sB) gives Running, Sub-Optimal and Error.

Some of them are stable states and some are transition states between stable states. The above states are clearly represented by color codes, labels and timestamps.

The matter:

When the user interface changes from consuming states from sA to sB, the connection to sB may be delayed. What is the best way to show transitoriness in this gap?

We can not show the status Deploying because the network object can also fail the deployment and go into the error state. However, this condition is only given by sB.

The question:

Is it ok / correct to include states for delays such as "polling status" or "loading status .." or similar while the user interface is moving from sA to sB? [note that we do not need or want the user to know that there are two separate systems where the status are being consumed from.]

or

just leave it as it is?

// Update //

This is what we have now, all available statuses (in the order of their appearance) and how they are presented. Now, do I have to introduce a status (or do I have to?) That appears when there is a delay between changing and getting the next status (PS: from another system or even the same system).

## np complete – If a problem is more difficult, is the language it represents smaller?

I read the definition of reducible polynomial time:

To let $$L_1, L_2$$ be two languages ​​Ob $$L_1$$ is to reduce polynomial time down to $$L_2$$ then exists $$f: {0,1 } ^ *$$ s.t. $$forall x in {0,1 } ^ *$$ $$x in L_1 iff f (x) in L_2$$

For me that means that $$L_1$$ can be greater (in cardinality) than $$L_2$$, but $$L_2$$ is more difficult there $$L_1$$ can be solved after $$L_2$$?

## Graphene – A * 8 puzzle issue that represents the worst case storage requirement

We test the A * algorithm with Hamming and Manhattan on the 8-puzzle problem (and its natural generalization N-puzzle).
We have to answer the following question, but I can not figure out what it should be.

This is the basis for our task.

How many card positions are in the worst case depending on the card size N (where N is the side of a card of size NxN). Specify the lowest possible upper limit. You can assume that a board configuration will never be in the priority queue multiple times.

I thought of N ^ 2! But that is impossible, because not every board position can be achieved.

## ux designer – Represents the schedule interface in Android

I have to demarcate an Android layout from the website shown below.

How can I display the schedule interface shown below for an Android layout?

Note The periods and days are dynamically provided by a REST API and do not include all days and hours. Therefore, I can not use a calendar week view
and when a group is selected, the equivalent period and day must be represented as a square that fills the corresponding cell.

I've designed the selection UI, which is part of the Registration Step layout and contains a recycler view with maps, each of which maps a course (see below).

Should I also design the schedule UI in the same step as the select step, or is it better for UX to have a second step to review the selection?