Custom Entry Types – How to remove default modules on the page for individual events in the Modern Events Calendar

I can edit the CPT "events" added by the Modern Events Calendar plug-in. However, I can not remove the default modules that were loaded in the frontend after creating a new event.

Can someone help me with a piece of code to disable them?

I still want to use the custom fields in the backend to set up the event lists, but I want to have full control over the page layout for individual events.

Many thanks to all who can help.

With best regards
will

Nginx, which does not add expired headings, does not change the MIME types

I have the following location block in my server block in /etc/sites-available/example.com:

    location ~* .(ttf|woff|woff2|eot|mp4|css|gif|ico|jpeg|jpg|js|png)$ {
            expires max;
            log_not_found off;
    }

and that under /etc/nginx/mime.types:

types {
...
application/x-font-ttf ttc ttf;
application/x-font-otf otf;
application/font-woff woff;
application/font-woff2 woff2;
application/vnd.ms-fontobject eot;
...
}

At first, the content type of the response header does not seem to change. For example, it shows for ttf Application / octet stream,

Most importantly, expired headers are missing. Any tips?

design – grouping related types in Go (about unions)

Suppose I have a bunch of related types that are returned by a function and that are handled
as a group and have certain common functions. In a classic OOP I would
You can achieve this by having a base class and then implementing it
each of the related types by subclasses of the base class. It would appear in Go
The main way to accomplish this is to define and then relate an interface
Classes implement it that way.

type Ball interface {
    Kick()
}

type Football {
    num int
}

type Soccerball {
    num int
}

func (b *Football) Kick() {
    fmt.Println("Kicking football %d", b.num)
}

func (b *Soccerball) Kick() {
    fmt.Println("Kicking soccer ball %d", b.num)
}

func main() {
    var b Ball
    // The goal is to provide a single type (in this case 'Ball') which 
    // can accomodate both Soccerball and Football (but is not interface{}).

    b = &Sockerball{}
    b = &Football{}
}

The problem with this approach is

  1. That it does not allow common attributes, only functions
  2. At least one function must be defined on the interface
  1. Can be partially resolved by using an embedded texture type with the desired attributes
    This also implements a separate interface type, but requires the definition of at least two types
    with different names just to allow the existence of a common "union type".

  2. Can be fixed by creating a & Dummy & # 39; function on the interface. However, this seems to be an abuse
    This is just one way to get the compiler to type-check
    This & # 39; union type & # 39; does not necessarily require the use of an interface.

Is something missing or is it what I have described as a standard
achieve what I want? Should I even try to do that, or is it not
idiomatic go-code? I imagine it's quite common to want a bunch of
Objects with shared attributes that can be accessed further
Base type, but maybe I'm wrong about it.

One thing I've discovered is that it's possible to embed an interface type in a structure like this

type Ball interface {
    dummyFunc()
}

type Football {
    num int
    Ball
}

type Soccerball {
    num int
    Ball
}

func main() {
    var b Ball

    b = &Sockerball{}
    b = &Football{}
}

To my knowledge, this allows the use of any type that implements a particular interface
The embedded & # 39; ball & # 39; type makes all methods that it implements on Ball available for embedding
Art. By simply not initializing the embedded type (ball), we can treat the embedded type (soccerball).
as a member of the type it embeds without actually having to implement the interface methods, so
Reaching the desired & # 39; union type & # 39; based, however, on the fact that the interface methods will never do this
(which would result in a null pointer exception) and thus requires implicit recognition
that the interface type exists only for grouping the structures. Aesthetically, this is the most desirable result
however, semantically it can be considered a bad form. If someone could comment (or correct) my observations
and give me an idea of ​​how this is achieved in practice (and if my last example is acceptable)
really appreciate it.

bitcoin core – types of onion addresses

I'm using a Bitcoin Core full node with Tor and I've configured a hidden service for it.
The point is: Bitcoin core protocol shows me an onion address that is much smaller than the one I found in /var/lib/tor/bitcoin-service/hostname,
I noticed that other peers in the network via the Small contact me .Onion Address.
What is the difference between these two types of onion addresses? Are they correlated in any way?
I also tried to use that longer , onion Address in the externalip Option inside bitcoin.confbut it gave me a mistake.

Is beta-reduction in the theory of types in category theory regarded as the basis for the Homent sensor adaptation, as a denotational or operational semantics?

Nlab's article on the relationship between type theory and category theory states that "beta reduction" in the type theory "county for hom-tensor adjunction" in category theory and "substitution" "composition of classification" corresponds to "morphisms / pullback of Display cards "accordingly.

Are these regarded as designation or operation semantics?

statistics – How do we know that it is better to compress some data using an algorithm based on our previous experience with similar data types?

In practice, the same compression algorithm is used for similar data from a similar source. Why can we compress different images with the same compression algorithm, and that works for everyone? Is it due to a statistical or information-theoretical property of the data, and if so, which property?

4 different types of earning opportunities on one platform

m_pay.gifm_pay.gifm_pay.gifm_pay.gifm_pay.gifm_pay.gifm_pay.gifm_pay.gif

Zoom out

My Paying Tree is a professional platform for advertising and revenue sharing. We are a solution for online advertisers with traditional or online business. We provide high quality advertising to boost your business and increase your sales opportunities for your services or products. We offer our valued customers a true and high quality traffic.

My Paying Tree delivers high quality traffic worldwide, while providing you with the opportunity to earn profits by simply participating in our Traffic Exchange and Revenue Share services.
Our advertising packages for revenue sharing

Each member must purchase a $ 4 quarterly maintenance fee to earn money with Adpacks
Revenue Sharing Rewards (additional rewards not guaranteed) from 110% – 125%
The percentage of the daily upper limit depends on the daily sales achieved

SEED $ 1 USD
TIRES AT 110%
$ 1 maturing at $ 1.10
Daily limit 1.5% to 4.2%
Maximum Purchase: Unlimited
* PROCESSOR ONLY
REPURCHASE RULE 20%

PLANTS $ 5 USD
TIRES AT 117%
$ 5 maturing at $ 5.85
Daily limit 1.25% to 3.3%
Maximum Purchase: Unlimited
Requires 15 SEED packs
RETURN RULE 25%

TREE $ 25 USD
TIRES TO 125%
$ 25 maturing at $ 31.25
Daily limit 1% to 2.7%
Maximum Purchase: Unlimited
Required 75 PLANT Packs
REPURCHASE RULE 30%

REFERRAL PROGRAM
Planned for stability and longevity of the program

15no's SEED 1 Active Packages are required to receive the referral fee
(50% commission balance / 50% repurchase balance)
No recommendation commission for the purchase of adpacks by additional credits

REFERENCE COMMISSION WHEN PURCHASED
ADPACKS FROM PROCESSOR – 4%
LEVEL 1: 3% | LEVEL 2: 1%

REFERENCE COMMISSION WHEN PURCHASED
ADPACKS BY BALANCES – 1.5%
LEVEL 1: 1% | LEVEL-2: 0.5%

Register now: https://www.mypayingtree.com/ref/contcat.sa
Zoom out

About Mypayingtree: https://www.mypayingtree.com/public/page/16