I just dropped my iPhone in the toilet bowl but took it out after about 3 seconds. It's now totally off and wont turn back on!  Aside from cleaning it and keeping it in rice, is there any other way to fix it? Or is it just gone?  It's out of warranty.
So yesterday I dropped my iPhone into the toilet, it was literally submerged for less than 15 seconds and after taking it out I left it in my airing cupboard overnight to dry. Today the phone seems to be completely functional other than a very dark screen (changing brightness won't help).   Was wondering what the best course of action would be and if this is fixable.
How to quickly move one layer to a different group in large Photoshop files, without dragging? Is it ok to leave a slow cooker unattended? I'm reading .     The graph of $f: A \rightarrow B$ is the subset of $A × B$ consisting   of all ordered pairs $(a, b)$ with $f (a) = b$. If $A$ happens to be   $B^n$ for some $n ∈ N$, then we say that $f$ is a function on $B$ and   $n$ is the arity of $f$.   I don't understand the notation for the exponent of a set, I'm aware of what  is, it's the number of arguments or operands the function takes. I'm just not so sure if I can assume that a set with an exponent such as in $B^n$ means that a function has two operands.  I know the question may be too naive and perhapes the answer is the one I suggested and it's right in front of my face, I'm just searching for a confirmation or the negation of it. Thanks. Where does Windows store its wallpapers? I run Windows XP and the wallpaper I used to have got lost. I have backups of the system itself, so if I knew where to look, I could find a copy of the old wallpaper.  I have some idea of the original filename (searching now), and I recall it saves it as a bitmap, but an exact location would be helpful.  It was a photo/JPEG that used to be on the filesystem, and I don't have backups, so the Firefox, and Internet Explorer wallpaper locations are unlikely. I checked %SYSTEMROOT%\system32 as well - so I'm assuming it's somewhere else. Me and my friend want to build a basic 101 mob farm, but we can't decide where to put it. He says it has got to be over an ocean, I say it can just be 128 blocks above ground and it will be just fine.  So the question is:    What is the absolute ideal place for a mob spawner?  If we build it 128 blocks above ground do we still need to light up caves? If we dig a 128x128 square straight to bedrock will that make a perfect environment?   Please advise! booting windows 10 spends too long Definition of e I'm very eager to know and understand the definition of $e$. Textbooks define $e$ as follows $$ e = \lim_{p\to\infty} \left[1+\frac1{p}\right]^p \approx 2.71828 $$ Is there an &quot;easy to understand&quot; proof of this? I'm really looking for a derivation of this which is very intuitive and easy to comprehend. By the way I'm watching . Redirect 301 with hash part (anchor) # Is there a minimum damage rule? In D&amp;D3e, if you successfully hit a target you always did at least 1 point of damage (before applying Damage Resistance), even if you had a Strength penalty.  I can't find any mention of that rule in the 5e PHB.  Does the rule no longer apply, or did I just overlook it? Every time the DeLorean travels in time, it appears in the same place as the place it left. But that's the same place relative to the Earth's surface. In space-time terms, that point is constantly moving: the Earth rotates on its axis at a speed of one revolution per day, and moves around the Sun at a speed of one revolution per year (a roughly circular orbit with a radius of 93 million miles). The Sun is orbiting around the centre of our galaxy, pulling its planets with it, and our galaxy is moving relative to all other galaxies.  So if the DeLorean does not move in space in absolute terms, then a time-jump of even a few minutes would place it outside the Earth's atmosphere as the planet would have moved a few miles in that time. Therefore, to prevent this, the car's computer has to calculate the precise movement of the Earth (and Hill Valley) over the required interval travelled.  Two questions:   A computer powerful enough to do that kind of calculation probably couldn't have fitted into a car in 1985. So where did Doc get it from? If he could calculate the spatial displacement to remain in the same place on the Earth's surface that accurately, why couldn't he adjust those calculations to make the DeLorean appear wherever he wanted? Create hexagonal mesh on 3D Parametric Plot and 3D spheres? A game called  is making rounds on social media. I am trying to determine the maximum score attainable for this game.  Let's assume WLOG that only 2s are returned (if 4s are possible the max score is doubled).  First, I'll relax some of the rules to create a game, $\mathcal{G}$, that can achieve a score at least as high as the original, 2048 game.  A run $R$  of $\mathcal{G}_n$ consists of a sequence of moves $m_1,\ldots,m_k$ which manipulate a multiset, $\mathcal{S}$ of maximum size n.  Each $m_i$ is either:   a put $p$, which inserts a 2 into $\mathcal{S}$, or a merge, $\alpha_i$, which replaces two $2^i$ elements from $\mathcal{S}$ with a single $2^{i+1}$ elt.   I allow sequential moves of the same type because 2048 allows multiple merges or no-merge turns.  The score of a position is the sum of $\mathcal{S}$.  What is the maximum score possible on a game of order n?  Note: The final position must have only unique values, else a merge and put would be possible in increase score.  I claim it is $\sum_{i=1}^{n} 2^i$, but couldn't come up with any good induction arguments.  It's pretty easy to prove that an element $2^k$ is producible in a game $\mathcal{G}_k$, but proving an upper bound for production got a bit hairy, and also doesn't cover the full space. Is there an injective function $f :\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$?  I approached this problem from the perspective of $f^{-1}$, from which I showed there exists a surjective function $f^{-1}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2$. Would this imply that there exists an injective function for the inverse mapping? I use dd in its simplest form to clone a hard drive:  dd if=INPUT of=OUTPUT   However, I read in the manpage that dd knows a blocksize parameter. Is there an optimal value for the blocksize parameter that will speed up the cloning procedure? I have already read        and many others   But I still have the following problem:   On one hand I've been told that if pure rotation takes place then the object goes on forever. This must imply no frictional force in any form acting on the body. On the second hand I've been told that during pure rotation(no external forces like wind) on a plane surface friction acts opposite to velocity of center of mass (accompanied by change of normal) and slows it down.     Both seem logical enough: The point of contact doesn't slip therefore no friction is required; So no retarding force and it must go on. Things don't go on forever; Friction must be present to slow it down.    So, which hand is correct? Or is there a third hand altogether? This week I saw the definition of a measurable set for an outer measure.     Let $\mu^*$ be an outer measure on a set $X$. We call $A \subseteq X$ measurable if $$\mu^*(E) = \mu^*(A\cap E) + \mu^*(A^c\cap E)$$ for every $E \subseteq X$.   This is not the first time I've seen this definition. Unlike most other things in mathematics, over time I have gained absolutely no intuition as to why this is the definition.   The only explanation I've ever seen is that a set is measurable if it 'breaks up' other sets in the way you'd want. I don't really see why this is the motivation though. One reason I am not comfortable with it is that you require a measurable set to break up sets which, according to this definition, are non-measurable; why would you require that? Of course, you can't say what a non-measurable set is without first defining what it means to be measurable so I suppose no matter what your condition is, it will have to apply to all subsets of $X$.     Is there an intuitive way to think about the definition of measurable sets? Is there a good reason why we should use this definition, aside from "it works"? I am not very well versed on set theory or syntax, but I thought I knew the basics.  However, in a book about databases I am reading now, the author uses $2^x$ to signify "a set of $x$."  For example, $2^{\text{dogs}}$ is a set of $\text {dogs}$, etc.    The author never really explained this or why he does it, I just picked up the meaning from context.    I am not sure why the exponent operator is used, nor am I sure what the number $2$ has to do with it.  The sets being represented are NOT powers of $2$ (in size)... they come in all sizes.  Is this a valid notation?  I have not seen it anywhere before... Constructing the reciprocal of a segment How can one construct the reciprocal length of a line segment? For example, given any line segment a, how can $\frac{1}{a}$ be constructed?  I was told that it can be solved by creating similar triangles, but I do not get it. Who are the diamond moderators, and what is their role? Some people have a diamond after their username (e.g. )    What special privileges do diamond moderators have? How can I become a diamond moderator? Who are the diamond moderators?  How many are there?      For more information, see  in the .     Note: not to confuse with certain Stack Exchange employees, for example  members or "community managers", who often have diamonds as well, but are not ordinary moderators. Does anybody know how to easily undo a git rebase?  The only way that comes to mind is to go at it manually:   git checkout the commit parent to both of the branches  then create a temp branch from there cherry-pick all commits by hand replace the branch in which I rebased by the manually-created branch   In my current situation this is gonna work because I can easily spot commits from both branches (one was my stuff, the other was my colleague's stuff).  However my approach strikes me as suboptimal and error-prone (let's say I had just rebased with 2 of my own branches).  Any ideas?  Clarification: I'm talking about a rebase during which a bunch of commits were replayed. Not only one.