The big dock on the left. In other versions you could escape Unity Launcher by going to GNOME, what now? GNOME tweaks is not showing it as an extension, even though it looks a lot like Dash to Dock.    I see autohide options in settings, but no way to completely remove it and use the GNOME default.  Edit: I'm not looking for vanilla GNOME, but simply to hide the dock.
Some people (me) would prefer the straight GNOME experience as opposed to the Unity style desktop offered in Ubuntu 17.10.  How can I get the standard GNOME desktop and interface?
I'm trying to make taint spread to a certain area in my world, as in, to a small NPC structure. Is there any way I can do this? I even tried using MCEdit to set the biome, but there's no "enter biome ID" thing, and Tainted Land isn't listed. Find   $$\lim _{x\to \infty }x\Big(\ln\left(x+1\right)-\ln x\Big)$$  Here's how I do it:  $$x\Big(\ln(x+1)-\ln x\Big) = x\Bigg(\ln(x(1+\frac{1}{x}) - \ln x\Bigg)$$ $$x\Big(\ln x + \ln(1+\frac{1}{x}\Big)-\ln x =x\ln\Big(1+\frac{1}{x}\Big)$$ $$\ln\Bigg( \Big(1+\frac{1}{x}\Big)^x \Bigg) \rightarrow \ln 1^\infty = 0$$  What am I doing wrong? The answer is supposed to be $1$, but I get $0$. Is it possible to cross the Wagan border by car? I was planning a trip by car when I found something a bit weird in :if you try to cross from Lahore to India, it tells that you have to 6457 km detour.  Is it possible to cross this border driving? If not, is there another way to cross without having to make more than 6000 km? Lightning-Web-Components Select Option prepopulate value Let's say I have a Lightning-Web-Component with a select list with dynamic options where the value is a user Id and the label is the user's name:  &lt;select class="slds-select" onchange={handleSelectChange} disabled={isDisabled}                           data-value={step.selectedUser} &gt;                                 &lt;option value=""&gt;--None--&lt;/option&gt;                                 &lt;template for:each={step.approvalTemplateStep.Approval_Step_Users__r} for:item="user"&gt;                                     &lt;option key={user.key} value={user.User__c}&gt;                                         {user.User__r.Name}&lt;/option&gt;                                 &lt;/template&gt;                             &lt;/select&gt;    How do I prepopulate the select option with a value? I have the value I want to be prepopulated in the variable called step.selectedUser.  Here's what I see on page load:   Here's what I should see: What is a fragment in a fragment shader? Wikipedia says that:     In general, a fragment can be thought of as the data needed to shade the pixel, plus the data needed to test whether the fragment survives to become a pixel (depth, alpha, stencil, scissor, window ID, etc.)   So is it textures, vertices or something else? How to prove that a nilpotent operator has a basis representation that is strictly upper triangular? On a fresh install of TL 2018, on Linux, no tikz graph drawing libraries can be found.  The files, e.g. texlive/2018/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/graphdrawing/tex/pgflibrarygraphdrawing.trees.code.tex are there.  \documentclass{scrartcl}   \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{graphdrawing} \usegdlibrary{trees}    \begin{document}  Hello World  \end{document}   Compiling with lualatex yields   ! Package pgf Error: Graph drawing library 'trees' not found. When should you use a class vs a struct in C++? What are the rules of parallelism? I've been reading a lot about it since yesterday and all I encounter is "They must have the same grammatical form"? What does this exactly mean?  I know how to make parallel sentences with gerunds. The things get trickier when it comes to using modifiers.  For example:     I love using the phone that you bought me and the computer.   On the left side of the conjunction there is a noun phrase that consists of an article + noun + another modifier and on the right side there is an article + noun.  They are both noun phrases but the first one has additional modifier. Is that still considered a parallel sentence?  Another example:     I like to swim and to feel good.   Here on the right side of the conjunction there is an infinitive and on the left side there is an infinitive + complement? Is that parallel? I am working on binary classification problem, I try to evaluate the performance of some classification algorithms (LR,Decission Tree , Random forest ...). I am using  a cross validation technique (to avoid over-fitting) with AUC ROC as scoring function to compare the performance of the algorithms, but I am getting a weird results with Random forest and AdbBoost, I have a perfect AUC_ROC score (i.e. =1) despite the fact that the recall(TPR) and FPR of this algorithms are different from 1 and 0 respectively .  def FPR(y_true, y_pred):     tn, fp, fn, tp = confusion_matrix(y_true, y_pred).ravel()     result = fp / (fp+tn)     return result def FNR(y_true, y_pred):     tn, fp, fn, tp = confusion_matrix(y_true, y_pred).ravel()     result = fn / (tp+fn)     return result FPR_scorer = make_scorer(FPR) FNR_scorer = make_scorer(FNR)     def get_CrossValResults2(model,cv_rst,bestIndx):     best=pd.DataFrame.from_dict(cv_rst).iloc[bestIndx]     roc=&quot;{:.12f}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_roc_auc'])     acc =&quot;{:.0%}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_accuracy'])     prec =&quot;{:.0%}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_precision'])     rec =&quot;{:.0%}&quot;.format( best['mean_test_recall'])     f1 =&quot;{:.0%}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_f1'])     r2=&quot;{:.2f}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_r2'])     g_mean=&quot;{:.2f}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_gmean'])     pr_auc=&quot;{:.8f}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_pr'])     fnr=&quot;{:.0%}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_fnr'])     fpr=&quot;{:.0%}&quot;.format(best['mean_test_fpr'])     rst = pd.DataFrame([[ model, acc,prec,rec,fpr,fnr,f1,roc,pr_auc,g_mean,r2]],columns = ['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall','FPR','FNR', 'F1-Score','ROC_auc','PR_auc','gmean','r2'])     return rst        cross_val_rst = pd.DataFrame(columns = ['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall','FPR','FNR', 'F1-Score','ROC_auc','PR_auc','gmean','r2'])              scoring = {'accuracy':'accuracy','recall':'recall','precision':'precision','fpr':FPR_scorer,'fnr':FNR_scorer,'f1':'f1' ,'roc_auc':'roc_auc','pr':'average_precision','gmean':Gmean_scorer,'r2':'r2'}     param_grid = {'n_estimators': [200],               'max_depth': [80,90],               'min_samples_leaf': [2,3, 4],             'min_samples_split': [2,5,12],             'criterion': [ 'gini'],              'class_weight' : [class_weights], 'n_jobs' : [-1]}  clf = GridSearchCV(RandomForestClassifier(class_weight=class_weights), param_grid, cv=kfold,scoring=scoring,refit=refit)#Fit the model bestmodel = clf.fit(X,Y)       cross_val_rst = cross_val_rst.append(get_CrossValResults2(model='Random Forrest',bestIndx=bestmodel.best_index_,cv_rst=bestmodel.cv_results_),ignore_index=True) The "Satellite Paradox": Twin paradox in orbiting satellites I want to simply eliminate the effect of acceleration, which is the cornerstone in resolving the traditional twin paradox, through the following thought experiment: Assume twins $A$ &amp; $B$ are located in the same orbital height, far away from the surface of a massive planet, on a long concrete column at rest WRT the planet. A rapid explosion that happens between the twins makes them orbit the earth with a high velocity, say, $0.6 \ c$, in the same orbital path but in different directions. According to relativity, since the orbiting satellites are completely inertial frames, each twin attributes a variable time dilation to the other one, and each twin expects the other one to be younger. Nonetheless, these twins are automatically reunited after traveling half of the orbit's circumference without being affected by additional accelerations. Which twin is younger in this case? Indeed, If each twin sees the other's clock as running slow all along the way, how can the clocks agree when they meet? For this configuration:  The acceleration due to the explosion does not affect the twins' clock rates since it occurs abruptly in the same place on the column where the twins are located back-to-back. The clocks have been synchronized just before the explosion.  The traditional gamma factor, attributed to one twin from the viewpoint of the other, is variable because the resultant velocity of one twin complying with the relativistic velocity addition is a variable measured from the viewpoint of the other one. However, whether or not the corresponding time dilation is varying, each twin anticipates the other one to be younger. There is no breaking of symmetry!  The $g$-field of the planet has nothing to do with orbiting satellites since they are inertial, and thus GR corrections are not inserted. (Remember the GPS settings!) Need to give permissions to /tmp/cache and /tmp/templates_c but can't find them Why do electrons not fully fill up all the orbitals sequentially? Why do electrons not fully fill up all the orbitals sequentially? By this I mean: why don't the electrons fully take up the previous orbit first and then move onto the next orbit? Take calcium for example, it's electron config is 2, 8, 8, 2. Why isn't it 2, 8, 10? Why does another orbit need to be created when there are still many spots to fill up?  (I know that this is a chemistry question in a physics forum, but I really could not find a chemistry or even a broader science type forum here ) Concatenate all arguments and wrap them with double quotes How can I change GNOME Shell theme? In the following sentence, I want to know if I've understand the correct meaning or not:     This version holds that the wave function does not so much describe the state of the physical system as the state of our knowledge of the system.    Can we say that it means the wave function describes the state of our knowledge  of the system more than it describes the state of the physical system  ?  It is worth noting that in the Cambridge Dictionary, we read:  not so much sth as sth ​ If you say that something is not so much one thing as something else, you mean it is more the second thing: They're not so much lovers as friends. I don't feel angry so much as sad. Eigenvalues and power of a matrix Blocking comment spam without using captcha Avoid synchronized(this) in Java? Survival probability up to time $n$ in a branching process. Let $\{Z_n : n=0,1,2,\ldots\}$ be a Galton-Watson branching process with time-homogeneous offspring distribution $$\mathbb P(Z_{n,j} = 0) = 1-p = 1 - \mathbb P(Z_{n,j}=2), $$ where $0&lt;p&lt;1$. That is, $Z_0 = 1$ and $$Z_n = \sum_{j=1}^{Z_{n-1}}Z_{n,j}$$ for $n\geqslant 1$. Let  $$T=\inf\{n : Z_n=0\} $$ be the extinction time of the process. I want to find $$t_n := \mathbb P(T&gt;n), $$ i.e. the probability that the process survives up to time $n$. I found the following recurrence:  $$t_{n+1} = p(2t_n - t_n^2)$$ (with $t_0=1$) from this mathoverflow question:   I checked the recurrence for small values of $n$, and confirmed that $t:=\lim_{n\to\infty} t_n$ satisfies $$ t = p(2t - t^2),$$ both in the case where $t=0$ $\left(p\leqslant\frac12\right)$ and where $t=2-\frac1p$ $\left(p&gt;\frac12\right)$. So I'm fairly confident this recurrence is valid. However, I have no idea how to solve it.  For context, this problem comes from Adventures in Stochastic Processes by Sidney Resnick:   From @Did's comment, it appears to be intractable to find a closed form for $\mathbb P(T&gt;n)$. I find it curious that the question would be asked were it not, though.