Every time I search the internet for what all of the Christmas items on the list in Merry Clickmas, I only find incomplete lists.   Right now I have 360% on my current speed - these are the decorations I have unlocked (each decoration adds +4% speed):     a Christmas tree a partridge in a pear tree tinsel baubles glass ornaments a star an angel a fairy a cherub pine cones Christmas lights candles a lantern bells five gold rings a trumpet a drum ribbons glitter a Merry Christmas banner a Christmas wreath mistletoe holly an advent calendar paper chains Christmas crackers Christmas cards Christmas presents toys wrapping paper a Christmas stocking a Christmas sack candy canes chocolate decorations a Christingle a nativity scene a figure of Mary a figure of Joseph a figure of Jesus wise men figures a toy soldier a donkey decoration a robin decoration a reindeer decoration a penguin decoration a polar bear decoration a santa decoration an elf decoration a sleigh decoration a Christmas pudding decoration a turkey decoration a chimney decoration a snow globe a snowman snow decoration icicles santa hats a lump of coal ivy poinsettia a nutcracker a toy train a Christmas pickle chestnuts roasting on an open fire and a gingerbread house     Are there any more or is that the limit?
After you get the Reindeer Stables, you can add decorations through a text form to increase production speed. I've added a few decorations myself, but I was wondering what all of them are. I know that some entries seem to be "synonyms". For example, if you enter "wreath" and then "garland", you'll only add the "a Christmas wreath" and trying to put up the garland will return "We already have a Christmas wreath".  These are the decorations I've already added along with discovered synonyms.   Nutcracker (Nutcracker) a Christmas tree (tree) baubles (bauble) glass ornaments (ornament) a star (star) Christmas lights (lights) a Christmas wreath (wreath, garland) mistletoe (mistletoe) a Christmas stocking (stocking) candy canes (candy cane) a chimney decoration (chimney, fireplace) a Santa decoration (santa) an elf decoration (elf) a reindeer decoration (reindeer) a nativity scene (stable) toys (toy) wrapping paper (wrap) candles (candles) tinsel (tinsel) a star (star) an angle (angle) holly (holly) paper chains (chains) Christmas crackers (cracker) Christmas cards (card) a figure of Mary (mary) a figure of Joseph (joseph) a figure of Jesus (jesus) wise men figures (wise men) a donkey decoration (donkey) a sleigh decoration (sleigh) a snowman (snowman) snow decoration (snow) Santa hats (hat) bells (bell) ribbons (ribbon) a turkey decoration (turkey) ?
Why are the endpoint lines of intervals (`|-|`) not shown completely? I use \draw[|-|] () to (); to draw a few intervals.  I expect that each interval is rendered like |----| (see the 2nd and the 3rd intervals in the figure below).  However, the top and the bottom intervals below show only a half of their endpoint lines (i.e., |).  Why are these endpoint lines (|) not shown completely? How to show them?        \documentclass{standalone} \usepackage{tikz}  \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture}   \draw[|-|, red] (0,0) to (1,0);   \draw[|-|, red, dashed] (0,1) to (1,1);   \draw[|-|, blue, dashed] (0,2) to (1,2);   \draw[|-|, blue] (0,3) to (1,3); \end{tikzpicture} \end{document} My problem is simple. I think that the strange deformations on the top are there because there are so many vertices in one face. How do I fix this while maintaining nice topology?  Although I triangulated the top polygon, the problem still persists. Trailing spaces on comment link format Trailing spaces on comment link format preventing it to form a link  [Stack Overflow ](http://stackoverflow.com)   May be by-design or even dup, but just reporting what I accidentally found today. How to add a Timeout to Console.ReadLine()? Can I mill my opponent into defeat with Mindcrank and Duskmantle Guildmage? Okay the scenario I'm thinking of is as follows:   I control a ,  and 3 untapped lands (2 swamps, 1 Island to be perdantic). In my opponents turn he casts a burn spell to kill my duskmantle.   I activate his first ability in response.   The way I am hoping the following interactions will go is:   Duskmantles ability will hit the stack at the top and resolve The burn spell resolves dealing its damage to Duskmantle The burn spell card hits the graveyard and triggers the infinite loop for duskmantle and mindcrank killing my opponent Duskmantle perishes   Is this the way that the stack would pan out? Do I win in this situation regardless of the stack being correct or not above? (I am not fully familiar with how the stack really works in magic) You can see the cards from my deck . Is there a way to change the environment variables of another process in Unix? What is the JavaScript version of sleep()? How do I find diamonds? The durability of iron tools is really starting to annoy me, but in all my hours of playing I've only stumbled across one deposit of diamond ore that provided around 7 Diamonds. What's the best way to locate more in Survival mode? Where is it most commonly found? Order of a product of subgroups. Prove that $o(HK) = \frac{o(H)o(K)}{o(H \cap K)}$. Why has my Samsung Galaxy S2 become a data hog? try+gerund/infinitive (Difference in meaning) I tried to open the door. I tried opening the door   We can use both infinitive and gerund with verb "try" as used in above sentences. Does it change the meaning of the  sentence if use gerund or infinitive?.(here i don't know if the meaning of sentences is changed.)     The same confusion arise in these two sentences.  1.I stopped seeing him. 2. I stopped to see him.(But in case of these two sentence i know the meaning is changed but don't know exactly what the change is). I need to hide field 'B' when the value in field 'A' is NOT equal to 'Other'.  This is a custom list form.  Is jquery the way to go? How far can one get in analysis without leaving $\mathbb{Q}$? Suppose you're trying to teach analysis to a stubborn algebraist who refuses to acknowledge the existence of any characteristic $0$ field other than $\mathbb{Q}$.  How ugly are things going to get for him?  The algebraist argues that the real numbers are a silly construction because any real number can be approximated to arbitrarily high precision by the rational numbers - i.e., given any real number $r$ and any $\epsilon&gt;0$, the set $\left\{x\in\mathbb{Q}:\left|x-r\right|&lt;\epsilon\right\}$ is nonempty, thus sating the mad gods of algebra.  As @J.M. and @75064 pointed out to me in chat, we do start having some topology problems, for example that $f(x)=x^2$ and $g(x)=2$ are nonintersecting functions in $\mathbb{Q}$.  They do, however, come arbitrarily close to intersecting, i.e. given any $\epsilon&gt;0$ there exist rational solutions to $\left|2-x^2\right|&lt;\epsilon$.  The algebraist doesn't find this totally unsatisfying.     Where is this guy really going to start running into trouble?  Are there definitions in analysis which simply can't be reasonably formulated without leaving the rational numbers?  Which concepts would be particularly difficult to understand without the rest of the reals? Is the set of polynomials of degree less than or equal to $n$ closed? This question is in relation to the space $C(I)$, $I = [a, b]$. Define $P_n =\{ a_0+\dots+a_nx^n \mid a_i \in \mathbb{R}\}$ (any or all $a_i$ could be zero); clearly $P_n \subset C(I)$. The norm I'm using is $\lVert f\rVert_I = \sup_I |f(x)|$. Is $P_n$ closed under $\lVert\cdot\rVert_I$?   I am almost sure the answer is "yes", but I can't seem to prove it. My first instinct was to biject  $P_n$ to $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, using coefficients as coordinates, and prove that sequences of degree-$n$ polynomials converge to degree-$n$ polynomials, but I can't prove that the metric $\lVert\cdot\rVert_I$ is equivalent to the standard metric on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Next, intuitively given a function $f \in C(I), \notin P_n$ I should be able to find some $\epsilon &gt; 0$ such that there are no low-degree polynomials "nearby", then that function was not a limit point of $P_n$ so $P_n$ is closed. Again I have no idea how to prove this. What should I do? How do you differentiate the likelihood function for the uniform distribution in finding the M.L.E.? There is a classic problem:  Suppose that $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ form an i.i.d. sample from a uniform distribution on the interval $(0,\theta)$, where $\theta&gt;0$ is unknown. I would like to find the MLE of $\theta$.  The pdf of each observation will have the form: $$ f(x\mid\theta) =  \begin{cases} 1/\theta\quad&amp;\text{for }\, 0\leq x\leq \theta\\ 0 &amp;\text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$ The likelihood function therefore has the form: $$ L(\theta) = \begin{cases} 1/\theta^n \quad&amp;\text{for }\; 0\leq x_i \leq \theta\;\; \text{for all }i,\\ 0 &amp;\text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$ The general solution is usually that the MLE of theta must be a value of $\theta$ for which $\theta \geq x_i$ and which maximizes $1/\theta^n$ among all such values.   The reasoning is that since $1/\theta^n$ is a decreasing function of $\theta$, the estimate will be the smallest possible value of $\theta$ such that $\theta\geq x_i$.  Therefore, the mle of $\theta$, $\hat{\theta}$, is $\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$.  Here, I do not understand why we cannot just differentiate the likelihood function with respect to theta and then set it equal to $0$?  Thanks! Are two norms equivalent if they induce the same topology on a vector space? Is there some way to PUSH data from web server to browser? Of course I am aware of Ajax, but the problem with Ajax is that the browser should poll the server frequently to find whether there is new data. This increases server load.  Is there any better method (even using Ajax) other than polling the server frequently? What is currently the best way to get a favicon to display in all browsers that currently support it?  Please include:   Which image formats are supported by which browsers. Which lines are needed in what places for the various browsers. Linethrough/strikethrough a whole HTML table row Improving "demonstrate a minimal understanding" close reason Note: the eventual outcome of this discussion involved dropping this particular off-topic reason, along with other changes. See:  &nbsp; &mdash;Shog     I was using the reason "demonstrate a minimal understanding" myself quite frequently, but the more I review, the more I have doubts about it and I think this reason can either be dropped entirely or at least rephrased, so I started to use "problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem" instead:     Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved.   So the poster has posted some description, maybe even a snippet of code and in his mind that already proves that he has that minimal understanding required. After all he described the problem and what he tried to solve. So telling him that he lacks that understanding is rather rude, and from the posters point of view doesn't even apply. What both version of the reason not emphasize is that a description of a problem is not various versions of     it doesn't work   but that we rather mean really specific details (see below). I can often see in the reopen review queue that the "improved" version just includes a more verbatim description, while what usually would be expected is some specific error message, a trace or a log, or whatever applies.  Then it continues with:     Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist   comparing it to:     problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.   Which says essentially the same, only in more detail.   So the "minimum understanding" reason is IMO a more rude version of the reason telling the user that an SSCCE is missing.  The intent of giving this reason is to tell the user that he needs to give exact details to be able to help him, so IMO a checklist would be much better. Something like:     Your question was closed because it may not provide enough details. Things you can do to improve your question to get an answer include:         Format the code in a way that makes it readable and easily understandable.   Provide the smallest working sample of code demonstrating the problem (link to SSCCE)   Include your input and output.   If applicable provide logs (i.e. Android debugging log, stack trace, etc.).   If applicable provide the exact error messages (compiler, etc.).      And something like this should be best included already in the banner that appears when a question is closed instead of being hidden in some pages you often enough have to actively looking for.  It might be helpful to adjust this, based on the tags or close reason, as I realize that I'm more focused on the programming area, and the above list may not apply to other areas of SO.  Update  Another thing I forgot to mention (but wanted to) is this:     Questions asking for code   Is IMO essentially an invitation of the type of questions     I have a problem, can you provide the solution? (with an optional please)   while     Questions concerning problems with code you've written   puts at least some emphasis on the fact that the poster has to put some effort himself in trying to solve the problem by providing the code which he used to attempt the solution.