So, I wrote a review for an app. Both positive and negative thoughts in it, then I refreshed it and its not there. Help? Do I need a review account because all the people who review have some kind of username.
I have an app that's been out for a couple of weeks. Its not exactly selling like hot cakes yet, but I'm pretty sure I've gotten a rating or a review by now. But nothing shows when viewing either in iTunes or directly on the AppStore on the iPhone.  Is there a standard delay as to when ratings/reviews show up, that Apple imposes, especially for new apps? Or do you think there is some problem with Apple's system?
CSV text files loading error / crash in QGIS 2.18.8 I got a problem when I try to load tab-separated text files in the "Create a layer from the delimited text file" tab (that one with de comma symbol). After normally selecting the X and Y fields and clicking OK, the reference coordinate system (SRC) selector screen appears, then the program closes by itself. I had uploaded more than a hundred of this type of file by the same procedure in the previous version of QGIS (2.14 Essen) and have no problem, but since I updated to version 2.18.8 (Las Palmas) I can not load any files or .CSV type.   Do anyone knows what's happening? Am I doing anything wrong? How do I set up a Cron job? I want to schedule a task to run on a regular basis and have heard that Cron is the way to do this.  How do I add Cron jobs in Ubuntu? Why are these estimates to the German tank problem different? Suppose that I observe $k=4$ tanks with serial numbers $2,6,7,14$.   What is the best estimate for the total number of tanks $n$?   I assume the observations are drawn from a discrete uniform distribution with the interval $[1,n]$. I know that for a $[0,1]$ interval the expected maximum draw $m$ for $k$ draws is  $1 - (1/(1+k))$. So I estimate $\frac {k}{k+1}$$(n-1)≈$ $m$, rearranged so $n≈$ $\frac {k+1 }{k}$$m+1$.  But the frequentist estimate from  is defined as:  $n ≈ m-1 + $$\frac {m}{k}$  I suspect there is some flaw in the way I have extrapolated from one interval to another, but I would welcome an explanation of why I have gone wrong! How can light be called electromagnetic if it doesn't appear to be electric nor magnetic?  If I go out to the sunlight, magnets aren't affected (or don't seem to be).  And there is no transfer of electric charge/electrons (as there is in AC/DC current in space).   In particular, the  (which light is supposed to be composed of) have no electric charge (nor do they have ).   I'm looking for an explanation that can be appreciated by the average non-physicist Joe. On the commutative property of multiplication (domain of integers, possibly reals) $ab = ba$  This is, inherently, true. Some texts drop it like an axiom without any justification. But I'm a bit curious where it stems from or basically why/how it works. If anyone could enlighten me a bit further, I'd be most grateful. Peano axioms? From set theory? Help.  What bugs me with this definition is it's real world "application":  Let's say I have a power output of 5 W ( $kg\cdot m^2 \cdot s^{-3}$) and I want 30% of that power output (to have some units and natural context).  Naturally, 30% is 30 1/100 (% is the unit). For simplicity, let's express that as:  $30$%$ = 30/100 = 3/10 = 3d$ where $d = 1/10$, a simpler unit (because %W would look... Wrong?).  So 30% of power is then $5 W \cdot 3d$, and we can force it to "make sense" if we associate d with W or basically scale the unit of power by d (which is intuitively understood as being 10 times smaller then the output of 1 W) $dW$. And we want to scale these 5 units of $dW$ three times.  $5 dW \cdot 3$  But the commutative property says it is the same as scaling 3 units of $dW$ 5 times or:  $3 dW \cdot 5$  And the result is the same. This is the bit that hurts my head, the fact it is the same. I try to interpret the same as, for example 50 J of work, it's either applying 50 N over 1 m of distance or 1 N over 50 m of distance.    Down here is additional stuff I think I have (you don't have to read it if you know how to answer immediately). I don't claim it's correct, if anyone parses this information, feel free to correct me.  $m\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{1} = n\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{1}$  This is how I've been trying to break it down, as it is repeated addition. It is repeated $n$ times and multiplied by $m$, and reverse on the right side. There is $x = m - n$, so when I multiply $n$ $m$ times, each repeated addition of $n$ lacks exactly $x$ to $m$.  $mn = nm$  $x = m-n$  $m(m-x) = (m-x)m$  $m^2 - mx = m^2 - mx$  $ true $  And yes, sadly, I realise that I am using the very property I'm trying to prove ($xm$ shifted as $mx$ on the right-hand side.)  And it even calls in the distributive property of multiplication over addition which I derive (for myself, informally) from the very nature of multiplication and the way we "process" numbers:  For example, number $55$ times $2$  $55 = 5 \cdot 10^1 + 5 \cdot 10^0 = 5 \cdot 10 + 5 \cdot 1$  $(5 \cdot 10 + 5 \cdot 1) \cdot 2$  This is the basis of our positional notation which appends digits of varying orders of magnitude or units together in a way it makes "sense". Each one is b times bigger than the one to the right. Basic stuff. It is why I expressed 10 and 1 explicitly, those are what I consider units in this case.  Now, from the definition of multiplication, which is at its heart just repeated addition, it is truly the same if you add together $2$ $50$ times and then again $5$ times or "all at once" (figuratively, we are always doing the former mentally) $2$ $55$ times.  That added together gives 110, which is true.  To me, the distributive property (in case of integer multiplication) is a repercussion of the very definition of multiplication which is repeated addition (evading strict concepts). I am not certain whether this is a good way to look at it. What is the command to add newline linebreak in \sum \prod? I am sure this question or similar has been asked but I cannot find it by searching so adding it to make it more accessible: what is the command/environment to add newline linebreak in \sum \prod so the expression is on two rows instead of one line hard to read?    MWE  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}  \begin{document}  $$\sum^{N_{cut}}_{i=1,\newline e_1\in C_i,e_2\not\in C_i} \prod_{j\in C_i} p_j-\sum^{N_{cut}}_{i=1,e_2\in C_i,e_1\not\in C_i} \prod_{j\in C_i} p_j\geq 0$$  \end{document} Why does observation collapse the wave function? In one of the first lectures on QM we are always taught about Young's experiment and how particles behave either as waves or as particles depending on whether or not they are being observed. I want to know what about observation causes this change? If my account is already a member of the administrator group why do some functions on Windows 7 require me to run them as administator? I kind of thought that was implied? What's an idiom for doing something in an unnecessarily complicated way? For an example, I'll quote C.S. Lewis' The Voyage of the Dawn Treader:     One day the cat got into the dairy and twenty of them were at work moving all the milk out; no one thought of moving the cat.   Is there an idiom for this type of situation? would this be considered a 'methodology' or a 'method'? Say I developed something called "Methodology for Establishing Remaining Life of Components". Basically, at work, we have components (or equipment). I wanted to develop a way to identify how much longer the components / equipment can last before they ware out and cannot be used.  It takes into account "the degree of damage currently in the component, the rate of future damage accumulation based on realistic operating scenarios, and the degree of damage required to cause failure." Taking these three into account, the remaining life of a component can be assessed. This is what I call "Methodology for Establishing Remaining Life of Components".   My question is, would this be considered a 'methodology for establishing remaining life of components' or just a 'method for establishing remaining life of components'? Or do you need more information to figure out if it is a method or methodology?   I cannot provide all the information for business purposes, but if additional  information is required to figure out if it is a method or methodology, I will provide it. Remove sudo privileges from a user (without deleting the user) Proving $\left(1+\dfrac{1}{1^3}\right)\left(1+\dfrac{1}{2^3}\right)\cdots\left(1+\dfrac{1}{n^3}\right)<3$ for all positive integers $n$ Prove that $\left(1+\dfrac{1}{1^3}\right)\left(1+\dfrac{1}{2^3}\right)\cdots\left(1+\dfrac{1}{n^3}\right)&lt;3$   for all positive integers $n$   This problem is copied from Math Olympiad Treasures by Titu Andreescu and Bogdan Enescu.They start by stating that induction wouldn't directly work here since the right hand side stays constant while the left increases.They get rid of this problem by strengthening the hypothesis.$$\left(1+\dfrac{1}{1^3}\right)\left(1+\dfrac{1}{2^3}\right)\cdots\left(1+\dfrac{1}{n^3}\right)\le3-\dfrac{1}{n}$$ and then proceed by induction.  The problem is that I can't find a motivation for the above change.I mean,we could have subtracted a lot of things from the RHS but what should nudge us to try $\dfrac{1}{n}$?The rest of the proof is quite standard,but I can't see how I am supposed to have thought of it.Is it just experience?Or is it a standard technique?A little guidance and motivation will be appreciated. Show that $a_{n+1}= 1 + \frac{1}{a_n}$ converges. Best way to draw matchstick pictures I want to draw various matchstick pictures like this:    or like this    or other figures from:   I want to use TikZ for this and have two questions about this:   How do I get the path decoration with the matchsticks? What's the (syntactically) easiest way to draw pictures like this or how would a TikZ expert do this (to be flexible enough to draw such kind of figures but to have an easy syntax)? Some spells, such as Forbiddance, say that under certain circumstances, they last "Until Dispelled".  Other spells, such as Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, say that under certain circumstances, they become "Permanent".  What is the difference between these two terms?  Does "Permanent" mean that the effect can never be dispelled? Common screen resolution? I'm developing a web application which is quite information heavy. This means that every pixel available in the screen for display helps a lot, to avoid the UI looking too cluttered and to display relevant data.  I was wondering: which is the "common" screen resolution? Years ago it was something like 1024&times;768, but nowadays it must be something much higher. I can't rely on what I use as I'm a developer and I probably have bigger screens and resolution than the average Joe user.  So, where can I find the currently recommended resolution for webapps? I've heard that you need to get a Mac if you want to develop iPhone apps. Is this true?   Is it possible to develop iPhone apps using Linux? If yes, what do I need and where do I download the necessary tools? Do I need a transit vsa in Kuwait; what about checked baggage? I am trying to find out how to approach a relief type project. I have a background image and a flat plane mesh to sculpt on, but I actually don´t see any changes looking straight on top. When I tilt the perspective a bit the image disappears.  Is there a way to make the image appear at all perspectives? Example of quasi-compact, non-quasi seperated scheme where qcqs fails?