On quote whenever user specifies Start Date and End Date we need to calculate Subscription Term which should be exact months, here it should say 12 months but its showing 11.96.      Can anyone please advise correction in formula or anyone having solution around it, so that I can calculate exact months between two dates(considering scenario of leap year in between) e.g if start date = 1 Jan 2000 and End Date = 15 Mar 2000 then it should show something like 2.5 months instead of 3.  Formula we are using right now is following :  IF(  IF( SBQQ__SubscriptionTerm__c &gt; 0 , SBQQ__SubscriptionTerm__c , (( SBQQ__EndDate__c - SBQQ__StartDate__c) / 30.4375) )  = 0, 12, ( IF( SBQQ__SubscriptionTerm__c &gt; 0 , SBQQ__SubscriptionTerm__c , (( SBQQ__EndDate__c - SBQQ__StartDate__c) / 30.4375) ) ))   The reason we need exact term because the price which is applicable to products is based on term and we can't round of term as it will then lead to incorrect pricing calculation.  If anyone having solution using APex too , then it is much appreciated.
My client wants me to write a formula field to return the duration(in months and days) between two date fields.  For ex:    If start date is "January 1st 2016" and end date as "December 31st 2016" then it should return value as "12". If start date is "January 1st 2016" and end date as "November 20th 2016" then it should return value as "11.67".   From the sample formulas given on the salesforce , I see that there is a formula date_1 — date_2 to calculate number of days between two dates.  But should I update the formula to (date_1 — date_2)/30 or (date_1 — date_2)/31 to get what I need?  Is this something really doable using formula or am I better off solving this using Apex?
The Barbarian's Rage ability gives advantage on Strength checks and saving throws.  Does this mean that the Barbarian gets advantage to attack rolls as well? Is an attack a check, or since saving throws are mentioned, that means it does not apply to attacks? I heard that there was a twitter bot which automatically posted questions and asked for answers for specific questions on every site. How do they work? Is there an algorithm for doing this or is it purely random? I know that it doesn't tweet closed questions, but that's it. When will data.SE get updated data? promised that data.SE would &quot;soon&quot; get live data:     I realize it's a long weekend, but given that data.SE is now over 2 months out of date, it would be nice if this was finally rolled out. $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\frac{(1+x)^{1/x}-e+\frac{ex}{2}}{x^2}=\,?$$   by directly substituting $x=0$ i got $\infty$ by using L-H's rule, i got $-1/8$   the given options are  $a)\frac{24e}{11}$    $b)\frac{11e}{24}$    $c)\frac{e}{11}$    $d)\frac{e}{24}$    may be the question would be  $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\frac{(1+x)^{1/x}-e+\frac{ex}{2}}{x^2}=\,?$$ Expectation of Exit Time of Brownian Motion from Interval I am trying to solve the following:  Let $W_t$ be a brownian motion and $a,b &gt;0.$  Define $\tau$ to be the exit time of $W_t$ from $[-a,b]$, that is $$\tau = \inf\{t \ge 0\ :\ W_{t}(\omega) \notin [-a,b]\}.$$  Show that $\tau$ is integrable and compute $\mathbb{E}(\tau)$.  I have seen this stated without proof multiple places that $\mathbb{E}(\tau)=ab.$  What is the logical argument that backs up this statement?  How are we guaranteed $\tau$ is integrable? What does the minus sign in Maxwell's third equation imply? If we write out Maxwell's equations with magnetic charges, we get $$ \begin{align} \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} &amp;= 4 \pi \rho_e \tag{1}\\ \nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} &amp;= 4 \pi \rho_m \tag{2}\\ -\nabla \times \mathbf{E} &amp;= \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} + 4 \pi \mathbf{J}_m \tag{3}\label{Eq:Faraday}\\ \nabla \times \mathbf{B} &amp;= \frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t} + 4 \pi \mathbf{J}_e \tag{4}\label{Eq:Ampere} \end{align} $$ In particular, Faraday's law \eqref{Eq:Faraday} contains a minus sign that Ampere's law \eqref{Eq:Ampere} does not. This always struck me as odd because it's often said the fields are dual to each other (i.e. you can replace E with B and &quot;get the same result&quot;), but that requires a bit of mental recalibration to accommodate that minus. So I'm curious what the origin of that negative is and what it means. Are there any intuitive explanations for how to think about it? I've recently decided that I just have to finally learn C/C++, and there is one thing I do not really understand about pointers or more precisely, their definition.  How about these examples:   int* test; int *test; int * test; int* test,test2; int *test,test2; int * test,test2;   Now, to my understanding, the first three cases are all doing the same: Test is not an int, but a pointer to one.  The second set of examples is a bit more tricky. In case 4, both test and test2 will be pointers to an int, whereas in case 5, only test is a pointer, whereas test2 is a "real" int. What about case 6? Same as case 5? How do I put an image texture on a material in Cycles? NB: Nvidia has released an official fix; please see ,  and/or .  Upon waking up Ubuntu 16.04 from Suspend, the following graphical glitches appear around all windows, context menus, and similar:      This is currently known to affect the following NVIDIA cards running the proprietary drivers:  NVIDIA GeForce 610M, driver version 375.39, 340.102 NVIDIA GT 630M, driver version 375.39 NVIDIA GTX 650, driver version 375.39 NVIDIA GT 740M, driver version 378.13 NVIDIA GTX 745, unknown driver version NVIDIA GTX 850M, driver version 375.39, 378.13 NVIDIA GT 940M, driver version 375.39 NVIDIA GTX 950M, unknown driver version NVIDIA GTX 960M, driver version 378.13 NVIDIA GTX 970, driver version 375.39 NVIDIA GTX 970M, driver version 375.39 NVIDIA GTX 980 TI, unknown driver version NVIDIA GTX 1060, driver version 375.26, 375.39, 378.09 NVIDIA GTX 1070, driver version 378.09  The above above list has been sourced from reports from other users here on AU,  thread, and  thread. NB: This is be no means an exclusive list. It probably effects nearly all Nvidia cards.  Furthermore, this issue has been replicated on a clean install where the only change was a software update and the installation of the latest NVIDIA drivers.  What is going on, and how can it be resolved? How do I stop Windows 10 from updating my graphics driver? terminator: permission denied for sudo Beamer: How to Disable `\pause` Temporarily How to highlight whole row and column under cursor in OpenOffice Calc? I need to work with large table. Something like in this illustation image will be helpfull for better orientation:    Is there some settings which makes this possible? Split a string by spaces -- preserving quoted substrings -- in Python I have a string which is like this:  this is "a test"   I'm trying to write something in Python to split it up by space while ignoring spaces within quotes. The result I'm looking for is:  ['this','is','a test']   PS. I know you are going to ask "what happens if there are quotes within the quotes, well, in my application, that will never happen. Why $\sqrt[3]{3}\not\in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})$? We all know that $\sqrt[3]{3}\not\in \mathbb{Q}({\sqrt[3]{2}})$ intuitively. We even know that $\sqrt[3]{p}\not\in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{q})$ for two distinct primes $p, q$. However, I don't know how to prove these things rigorously. In case of $\sqrt{p}\not\in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{q})$, we can just set assume $\sqrt{p}=a+b\sqrt{q}$ for some $a, b\in\mathbb{Q}$ and deduce a contradiction. However, in cubic case, expansion of $(a+b\sqrt[3]{2}+c\sqrt[3]{4})^{3}$ is very complicated and even I expand this I couldn't get any contradiction by this.  To be specific, it gives us 3 diophantine equations  $$a^{3}+2b^{3}+4c^{3}+12abc=3$$ $$a^{2}b+2b^{2}c+2c^{2}a=0$$ $$ab^{2}+2bc^{2}+ca^{2}=0$$  and I don't know how to check solvability of this kind of diophantine equations (over $\mathbb{Q}$). Even if there exists a way to check solvability, I cannot convince that it can be used to prove $\sqrt[3]{p}\not\in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{q})$.   So I tried to use Galois theory, but actually I don't know where to go. I assumed $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{3})=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})$ and take a Galois closure, i.e. $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{3}, w)=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2}, w)$ where $w^{3}=1$ then tried to use field norm maps. We can check that $\beta=\sqrt[3]{3}\cdot\sigma(\sqrt[3]{3})\cdot\sigma^{2}(\sqrt[3]{3})\in \mathbb{Q}$ when $\sigma\in Gal(K/\mathbb{Q}), \sigma(\sqrt[3]{2})=\sqrt[3]{2}, \sigma(w)=w^{2}$. But I cannot get any information from this.   Edit : It would be great if there is a simple algorithm to check whether $\alpha\in K$ or not for a given algebraic number $\alpha$ and a number field $K$. Android: No icon for Notification Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. How to prove that for any closed $A$ a function $d(x,A)$ is continuous - I know that it is even Lipschitz continuous, but I have a problem with the proof:  $$ |d(x,a) - d(y,a)| \leq d(x,y) $$ for any $a\in A$ - but we cannot just replace it by $|d(x,A) - d(y,A)|\leq d(x,y)$ since the minimum (or infimum in general) can be attained in different points $a\in A$ for $x$ and $y$, so we only have that $$ |d(x,A)-d(y,A)|\leq d(x,y)+\sup\limits_{a,b\in A}d(a,b) $$ which does not mean continuity. What are the light blue lines on my imported objects If you have a java.io.InputStream object, how should you process that object and produce a String?    Suppose I have an InputStream that contains text data, and I want to convert it to a String, so for example I can write that to a log file.  What is the easiest way to take the InputStream and convert it to a String?  public String convertStreamToString(InputStream is) {     // ??? } Transcendental Extensions. $F(\alpha)$ isomorphic to $F(x)$ Let $E$ be an extension field of $F$ and $\alpha \in E$. Then $\alpha$ is transcendental over $F$ if and only if $F(\alpha)$ is isomorphic to $F(x)$, the field of fractions of $F[x]$.   This was a theorem in an abstract algebra textbook with a very brief proof. Can someone please explain why this theorem holds? I'm having difficulty grasping the concepts at hand.  Thanks!