On a mac high sierra 10.13.3 I have 256 open files. I want to raise it and I open a terminal and enter   sudo launchctl limit maxfiles 1000000 1000000   This doesnt change anything when I enter  ulimit -a    I still get 256  But it does change something, because when I enter    sudo launchctl limit maxfiles 1000 1000   the system just stops working until a restart.   What is the right way to Increase number of open files in mac high sierra  Following command changes the open files just for the specific terminal session   ulimit -n 4096
Before Mavericks, I could use /etc/launchd.conf file to change maximum system resource consumption, for example:  limit maxfiles 16384 unlimited limit maxproc 16384 unlimited   It no longer works in Mavericks.  What is the correct way to do it in the recent version of OS X?
Usage of into vs in vs inside When should 'into', 'in' and 'inside' be used?  What are the differences between the three?   For example, what are the differences between the following statements?  Are any of them incorrect?        The frog jumped into the well.   The frog jumped in the well.   The frog jumped inside the well. Is there a detailed user's documentation for KDE Plasma 5? Limit $\frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$ is found using polar coordinates but it is not supposed to exist. Consider the following 2-variable function:     $$f(x,y) = \frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$$   I would like to find the limit of this function as $(x,y) \rightarrow (0,0)$.   I used polar coordinates instead of solving explicitly in $\mathbb R^2 $, and it went as the following:  $$ x = r \cos \theta, \qquad y = r\sin\theta $$   Hence,  $$\lim_{(x,y) \to (0,0)} \frac{x^2y}{x^4 + y^2} = \lim_{r \to 0}\frac{r^2\cos^2\theta(r\sin\theta)}{r^4\cos^4\theta + r^2\sin^2\theta}$$  This simplifies to,  $$ \lim_{r \to 0} \frac{r^3 \cos^2\theta\sin\theta}{r^2(r^2\cos^4\theta + \sin^2\theta)}$$  Simplifying $r^3/r^2$, we finally get;  $$\lim_{r \to 0} \frac{r (\cos^2\theta\sin\theta)}{r^2\cos^4\theta + \sin^2\theta}$$  Now from the above, we find that as $r \to 0$ the limit is $0$.   I wanted to verify this answer so I checked on Wolfram Alpha. Explicitly without changing to polar coordinates, it said that the limit does not exist at $(0,0)$ and rightly so. Then how is it that with polar coordinates, the limit exists and is $0$? Am I doing something wrong in this method?  Also, what should I do in this situation, and when should I NOT use polar coordinates to find limits of multi-variable functions? When do I use "I" instead of "me?" From some comments in the answers for  (now deleted, 10k only), there's confusion around the usage of I vs. me:  While the sentence, "the other attendees are myself and Steve," is agreed to be incorrect, there's confusion about whether the correct form is "the other attendees are me and Steve" or "the other attendees are Steve and I."  (I've always used the heuristic of removing the other people from the sentence, so I always thought "the other attendee is me" would be correct, instead of "the other attendee is I." Is this true, or am I using a flawed heuristic?) How do I install/update drivers on Debian 9? I just installed Debian 9 on my laptop, however Wifi isn't working and I'm not sure if my graphic card is either. I'm sure that it's just a lack of drivers, but I've never actually had to update drivers on Linux before. So how do I do that? I would like to put an address in my document as follows:  |                             | |                     Name    | |                     Street #| |                     City    | |                     ZIP     | |                             |   where the | mark the left and right page borders. I would like the items of the address (Name, Street etc.) to be left-flushed, but the box right-flushed so that the longest item touches the right page border.  Is there a simple way to accomplish this? Why taking components of a component of a vector is invalid? A singularity, by the definition I know, is a point in space with infinite of a property such as density.  Density is Mass/Volume.  Since the volume of a singularity is 0, then the density will thus become infinite because Mass/0 = undefined  However, is it possible to have a singularity with a mass of 0? 0/0 is indeterminate, but would it be possible for a singularity to exist even if its mass and volume were zero? I'm currently working through the book Heisenberg's Quantum Mechanics (Razavy, 2010), and am reading the chapter on classical mechanics. I'm interested in part of their derivative of a generalized Lorentz force via a velocity-dependent potential.   I understand the generalized force   $$F_i = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x_i} + \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial v_i}\right)$$  that they derive from a Lagrangian of the form $L = \frac{1}{2}m|\vec v|^2 - V(\vec r,\vec v,t)$.  However, in the next (critical) step of the derivation, the author cites a theorem from Helmholtz saying      ...according to Helmholtz, for the existence of the Lagrangian, such a generalized force can be at most a linear function of acceleration, and it must satisfy the Helmholtz identities.   The three Helmholtz identities are then listed as:  $$\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial \dot{v_j}} = \frac{\partial F_j}{\partial \dot{v_i}},$$  $$\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial v_j} +  \frac{\partial F_j}{\partial v_i} = \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial \dot{v_j}} +  \frac{\partial F_j}{\partial \dot{v_i}}\right),$$  $$\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial x_j} -  \frac{\partial F_j}{\partial x_i} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial v_j} - \frac{\partial F_j}{\partial v_i}\right).$$  I'm trying to understand where this theorem comes from. Razavy cited a 1887 paper by Helmholtz. I was able to find , but it is in German, so I could not verify whether or not it proved the theorem. Additionally, I could not find it in any recent literature. I searched online and in Goldstein's Classical Mechanics.   The only similar concept that I can find is in the  where we have three equations known as Helmholtz conditions. Are these two concepts one in the same? If so, how should I interpret the function $\Phi$ and the matrix $g_{ij}$ that appear in the Helmholtz conditions I found online?   If the cited theorem from Razavy does not relate from the inverse Lagrangian problem, could I have some help finding the right direction? $X$ and $Y$ are independent rv having pdf $f(t)=\frac{1}{\pi} \frac{1}{1+t^2}$ determine pdf of $Z=\frac{X+Y}{3}$ Android finding missing numbers Ownership of .Xauthority transferred to root Somehow, while playing around with LightDM and Webkit Greeter, the ownership of the .Xauthority file in my home dir was given to the root user and I couldn't login because I hadn't the privilegues to lock the file.  I was able to regain ownership of the file and I could login again. (After several hours of reinstalling LightDM and it's greeters)  So now everything's working fine again. But I'd like to know how this happened. Is this a bug in LightDM or Webkit Greeter or something else? Limit $\lim\limits_{x\to0}{\frac{\ln{(e+x)}-e^x}{\cos^2{x} -e^x}}$ Without using L'Hopital's rule find: $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}{\frac{\ln{(e+x)}-e^x}{\cos^2{x} -e^x}}$$ I found the first derivative because I planned to use Taylor series:  \begin{align} \frac{d}{dx}{\left(\frac{\ln{(e+x)}-e^x}{\cos^2{x} -e^x}\right)} &amp;=\frac{\left(\frac{1}{x+e}-e^x\right)\left(\cos^2{x} -e^x\right)-\left(\ln(x+e)-e^x\right)\left(\sin{2x}-e^x\right)} {(\cos^2{x} -e^x)^2}\\ &amp;=\frac{\frac{1}{x+e}-e^x}{\cos^2{x}-e^x}-\frac{\left(\ln(x+e)-e^x\right)\left(\sin{2x}-e^x\right)}{(\cos^2{x} -e^x)^2} \end{align}  However, it seems I haven't gone so far. Should I start from the beginning and try a different method?  Source in Croatian: 2.kolokvij, matematička analiza Problem about angle in isosceles triangle $ABC$ is an isosceles triangle, $AB=AC$, and $\measuredangle A=20^{\circ}$. For point $M$ on $AB$ and $N$ on $AC$, we have $AM=NC=BC$. Compute the  $\measuredangle BMN$.  In a similar problem (with only one point on one side) the key step was to construct an equilateral triangle on the other side. I tried using that in this problem too, but I didn't manage to solve it. Flagging a deleted answer results in a message saying I am flagging too quickly Generating a unique machine id Rerouting stdin and stdout from C Just beginning with photography.    Consider this image:     (This photo was taken by Harold "Doc" Edgerton in 1964 using his Rapatronic camera.)  I am looking for a  camera that can capture such an image. I am not looking for more fps. less fps is fine, but it must be able to capture such an instance.   What features should I look in such a camera?  How fast should be the shutter speed? What other things I should look for? Is "this Monday" or "next Monday" the correct way to refer to the very next Monday in the future? Possible Duplicate:          When I refer to the very next Monday that will occur in the future, I say "next Monday". Some colleagues refer to it as "this Monday", with "next Monday" meaning the second Monday which will occur in the future (I would refer to that as "Monday week", "this Monday" to me would mean the most recent Monday in the past).  Are these both acceptable usages, or is one more correct than the other? How to work with "FIFO" in C# .NET?