I noticed blender recently got updated with maya style radial menus. When I checked it out there was only a few things you could do with them like view and rotate the model or something. Is there any way now to customize the radial menus and put whatever you want in them?   Like could I make a menu for common options that then go into sub menus for like extrude loop select bevel etc... Is there a way to add whatever I want into the radial menus and or create new ones, either through blender naturally now or is there a script to do this?
The  mention that it is possible to add pie menus. But I'm not sure how to do it.  How could I convert the mesh select mode menu's appearance:    to this?
Why do microcontrollers have so little RAM? Maybe this is more of a perceptional problem, but it seems like microcontrollers have advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years, in almost all regards, higher clock speed, more peripherals, easier debugging, 32-bit cores, etc...  It is still common to see RAM in the 10's of KB (16/32&nbsp;KB).  It doesn't seem like it could be an issue of cost or size directly. Is it an issue of complexity with the RAM controller above some threshold?  Or is it just that it isn't generally required?  Looking over a parts matrix at a popular Internet supplier, I see one  with 256&nbsp;KB for less than US$8, and then for a few dollars more you can find a few more that are ROMless, but it seems pretty sparse...  I don't exactly have a need for a microcontroller with a MB of volatile storage, but it seems like somebody might... From the command line is it possible to open a package installer window (not install the application).  I understand I could run the application using sudo installer -pkg ..... -target ....... Instead i would like to open the package in a similar way to if I double clicked the package within the Finder. What is model identifiability? I know that with a model that is not identifiable the data can be said to be generated by multiple different assignments to the model parameters. I know that sometimes it's possible to constrain parameters so that all are identifiable, as in the example in Cassella &amp; Berger 2nd ed, section 11.2.  Given a particular model, how can I evaluate whether or not it's identifiable? Why does the sizeof operator return a size larger for a structure than the total sizes of the structure's members? The StackExchange™ MultiCollider SuperDropdown™ says I've got replies, but I've already viewed those. Problem using wildcard with apt When I run this command :  apt install libkf5*   I get the following error :  Unable to locate package libkf5*    I'm sure that the packages whose names start with libkf5 exist (tab-completion says so) . So the problem is not about the absence of those packages.(Note the asterisk at the end of that error message , the wildcard's not working at all) I use apt v.1.9. Thanks in advance. What is the name of a small unluxurious restaurant? Is there a name for this kind of restaurant? Searching Google, I can't find any synonym of restaurant. I've tried to search for images of unluxurious restaurant, small restaurant or mundane restaurant, with no satisfactory result. The restaurant I'm looking for is small, not so clean and definitely not a place that high class people go to eat.  It can be a house:    Or lie on a side of the street: How to install mods for the new Minecraft launcher How to configure preferred network for internet? I am connected to a LAN network and wireless network. Both provide access to internet.  Sometimes when the internet on LAN is not working, the browser simply throws an exception instead of switching to Wireless. (Wireless is on and local peer computers on wireless are connectible).  Apparently it is giving more priority to LAN. How do I increase the priority of Wireless or set it as an automatic fall back? Prove there's a simple path of length $k$ in a simple graph $G$ where all the vertices have degree of at least $k$.   Relevant definitions:  $G$ is a simple graph that consists of a vertex set $V(G) = \{v_1, v_2, ..., v_n\}$ and an edge set $E(G) = \{e_1, e_2, ..., e_m\}$ where each edge is an ordered pair of vertices. The edge $\{u,v\}$ is denoted $uv$.  A walk of length $k$ is a sequence $v_0,e_1,v_1,e_2,...,e_k,v_k$ of vertices and edges such that $e_i=v_{i-1}v_i$ for all $i$. A path is a walk with no repeated vertex.   My attempt:  Induction, for $k=1$ it's obvious.  Suppose for $k-1$ and we'll prove for $k$.  Let $G$ be a simple graph such that $\forall v \in V : d(v)\ge k$.  We can assume that there are at least $k+1$ vertices since there are $k$ neighbours to every vertex.  Let $v_0$ be some vertex, it has $k$ neighbours, we'll move to one of its neighbours say $v_1$ and remove $v_0$. So now there are $k$ vertices with a degree of at least $k-1$ and from the induction hypothesis we'll have a path of length $k$.  Is using only $k$ vertices from $n$ right? Does it keep the generality when using only all the neighbours of $v_0$? With the following circuits as examples :    and    How will the current I know how much to flow? Would any other wave travel first in the circuit and then come back and say so much current should flow? What's an intuitive way to think about the determinant? It seems intuitive that $a\; \propto \frac{F}{m}$, as the greater the force that is applied on an object, the greater its acceleration will be. Inversely, the greater the mass of the object, the slower the acceleration will be.  However, when rewriting proportions as equations, you must introduce a constant of proportionality, and in this case of a direct proportion, if $a \propto \frac{F}{m}$ then when rewriting as an equation you will have $$a = k\cdot\frac{F}{m}$$  In order to get the standard formula $F = ma$ this constant must be $1$. However, how do we know that this is the case? How do we know that the constant isn't $2$ and the formula $F = \frac{1}{2}ma$, for instance? Is there some sort of classification of all minimal non-cyclic groups? Does there exist some sort of classification of all minimal non-cyclic groups (non-cyclic groups, such that all their proper subgroups are cyclic)  I know the following classes of such groups:  1) $C_p × C_p$, where $p$ is a prime  2) $Q_8$  3) $\langle a,b | a^p = b^{q^m} = 1, b^{−1}ab = a^{r}\rangle$, where $p$ and $q$ are distinct primes and $r ≡ 1 \pmod q$, $r^q ≡1 \pmod p$.  (These three classes completely cover the case, when our group is finite: )  4)$C_{p^{\infty}}$, where $p$ is a prime  5)$(\{ \frac{n}{p^m}| m, n \in \mathbb{Z} \}, +)$, where $p$ is a prime  (These two classes completely cover the case, when our group is infinite abelian: )  6)Infinite non-abelian groups, such that all their nontrivial proper subgroups are isomorphic to $C_{p}$ for a fixed prime $p$ (Tarski monster groups)  7)Infinite non-abelian groups, such that all their nontrivial proper subgroups are isomorphic to $C_{\infty}$ ().  However, I do not know, whether there exists anything, that does not fall into these classes. I only know, that if such groups exist, they have to be infinite non-abelian. How can I import a .c4d static model (Cinema 4d) on Blender? Is there any plugin could help me? I didn't notice anything on Internet. Is it possible to write one CSS rule for several prefixed selectors? Is there a quasistatic process that is not reversible? I have seen several questions and good answers on the link between reversible and quasistatic processes, such as  or . However, these questions only adress one side of the problem : a reversible process is necessarily quasistatic.  I am interested in the other side of the equivalence : is there a process that is quasistatic, yet not reversible ? It looks to me that an irreversible process cannot be made perfectly quasistatic.  The  article about quasistatic processes takes as an example the very slow compression of a gas with friction. As the compression occurs very slowly, the transformation is quasistatic, and the friction makes it irreversible. I am not convinced by this example : if you press on the piston with a vanishingly small force you will have to reach the threshold of the Coulomb law for solid friction before moving the piston anyway. It makes the process non-quasi-static, however small the Coulomb threshold might be.  Another example I've heard of is the reaction between a strong acid and a strong base. It is always an irreversible process, and you could make it quasistatic by adding very small drops of base into acid at a time. But by trying to do that, you would inevitably reach a limit to the size of the drop imposed by surface tension.  Even if "reversible" and "quasistatic" mean very different things, is it true to consider that in practice, a reversible process and a quasistatic process is essentially the same thing ? The moderator agreement is visible at the following URL:       I acknowledge and agree that as a moderator for Stack Exchange Inc.      I will abide by the then-current Terms of Service of Meta Stack   Exchange, and other moderator policies made available to me,      I acknowledge that I may have access to potentially   personally-identifying information about Meta Stack Exchange users and   that in connection with such access      I will use such information solely in accordance with the then-current   Privacy Policy of Meta Stack Exchange,      I will not disclose this information to anyone,      I will not store or copy this information and      I will only use such information in connection with performance as a   Meta Stack Exchange moderator for the benefit of Meta Stack Exchange.      I acknowledge and agree that I am an independent volunteer moderator   to Meta Stack Exchange and I am not an employee, agent or   representative of Stack Exchange Inc., and I have no authority to bind   Stack Exchange Inc. in any manner. Stack Exchange Inc. reserves the   right to terminate my privileges as a moderator at any time without   warning.   It hasn't been updated with the new company name and still refers to Stack Exchange Inc. instead of Stack Overflow (Inc.?). Unable to change privacy settings upon install of Ubuntu 18.04 LTS Are any of these verb phrases grammatical?        allows the user of modeling and resolving     allows the user to model and resolve      Which version of the following sentence is correct/better?        In particular, it allows to acquire a signal using a sample rate significantly lower than the one dictated by the Nyquist criterion.   In particular, it allows acquiring a signal using a sample rate   significantly lower than the one dictated by the Nyquist criterion.      I searched Google Scholar for "" and "", and it seems people use both more or less with the same frequency.