TylerH

@Hobbamok I mean, if you want to focus on the ancillary aspect instead of the actual point of contention here, sure, you are wasting your time. The point under discussion here is whether the object on the other side of the AMF field is visible, not whether specific (detect magic) trumps general (AMF).

@Hobbamok Protrude means to stick into or out of something. Penetrate means to pass into or through. When talking about a barrier, the two are absolutely synonyms. Detect Magic's direct effect, which is sensing the presence of nearby magical items telepathically via divination, does work inside an AMF. However, the glow is explicitly a visible secondary/optional spell effect, not a telepathic/divination effect. The magic glow would be "suppressed" for any item inside the AMF, because AMF, or on the opposite side of an AMF from the caster, because that's how seeing things works.

@Hobbamok Since the description of AMF explicitly says spells or spell effects don't protrude into (a synonym for penetrate) the AMF, and the glow effect is a visible/line of sight spell action effect, then RAW it is not visible from the other side of the AMF. You're of course free to house-rule it otherwise.

I think the ultimate conclusion of this answer is correct but I don't like the language used in the bold header at the beginning. Detect Magic doesn't 'penetrate' the AMF, it simply exists, and the AMF suppresses Detect Magic from having an effect on anything inside it.

@SPArcheon-onstrike you should probably just make the edit if you think it'll be an improvement, since you have edit privileges. Kyle can always roll it back if they disagree with the edit.

@SPArcheon-onstrike LOL

Unfortunately this first question is... not really a value-add for the site, since it's basically just a math question.

@Lazers2.0 I was surprised to see the tag on here already; I forgot that Civ 7 had a week of early access for the deluxe version.

AKA exactly what we'll see happen in the US come 2025

sounds like, basically, Yoon just got upset that parliament keeps impeaching people and not passing budget requests and wanted to do and end run around them.

@User1865345 well that escalated and de-escalated quickly

SO moderators may have additional information such as login details or IP addresses for the various accounts that have posted similar URLs or domains in the past, that links them together, but that's not available to us. And there were just too many additional bad reasons listed for me to not flag it as a FP, frankly

At worst I think the direct URL should simply have just been edited out, not spam-nuked, given the post answered the question fine otherwise, as I said in the comment.

@Cow @Laurel @ipodtouch0218 I did check the other reports; I don't think the other reports were necessarily correct, and don't think that post was TP-worthy without additional information that's not privy to normal users. If there's some information available that shows the user is affiliated with that site, that would change the situation, but so far I didn't see any. They included four competing products, and then listed one reseller that resells one (or more) of those competing products.

Might be limited to just that topic/product, or it could expand...

Looks like IronSoftware has kicked off a minor ad campaign recently, based on this comment advertising it and an affiliateposting an answer recommending it (SO links)

@Makyen Thank you!

@TylerH cc @Makyen

Can the user Vega (SO user ID 5468463) please be added as a privileged user for SOCVR (SO room ID 41570)?

always better when a minor situation like that can be resolved w/out a flag

(and OP has already edited to provide disclosure in response to my comment)

@Fastnlight I think it's probably OK not to--I left a comment letting OP know to provide disclosure when linking to their own stuff

@Fastnlight Yes, but I don't know if a mod would delete it or just add in disclosure themselves

(and, for full disclosure, I am in the private heuristics team and in the ai domination chatroom on SO)

and it includes questions and answers whose flag declination explanation includes a direct link to the meta post by a mod saying they don't think posts that use code originally generated by AI but human-modified should be deleted, so the cause is pretty clear

@Jesse No this is within the past couple of weeks

It could easily be fixed by rephrasing the policy to not use the phrase "any use", which would align it with how it is being enforced, or by mods deleting content that freely admits to being genAI-generated

No, there's plenty of approved heuristics. It's an issue between the policy saying "any use of genAI is not allowed" and the enforcement being limited to explicitly exclude "generated AI code and then modified it myself before posting"

Hopefully they'll clear through my backlog soon and then they'll start aging away

@SeanGallardy makes sense, thanks

@JoshDarnell Thanks. Any idea why I don't need to do enumerate the column for that one and not for the identity column? I guess the identity column is special that way?

> Column name or number of supplied values does not match table definition.

I have set an MSSQL datetime column to have a default value of getdate()... but when I try to insert a row without specifying a value for that column, it throws the error about column mismatches. Am I crazy, or should I not be able to do this? Table structure and query examples (RecID is an auto-incrementing identity column)

Given that that question and this question both exist (with answers), and the nature of my problem was due to TCP port 1433 being blocked but enabling Named Pipes being a workaround, I'm not sure whether there's any value in posting mine--it could just get closed as a duplicate of those two together

@JohnK.N. Looks like your hunch is correct. This answer suggests it is specified to work that way: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/318855/…

except it works on the Win10 machine, and the TCP connection attempt fails there, too... or, at least I thought it did

of course, when I test it in PowerShell with test-netconnection, the TCP connection attempt does fail, so maybe you're right

@JohnK.N. I thought it could be a TCP issue, but I added a firewall policy to allow all TCP/UDP traffic (first it was port 1433 and 1434 for TCC/UDP specifically, then all ports for the SSMS application). But... not being a networking/security guy, I don't know if that actually worked/was applied correctly

@Vérace I'm not really a networking guy, so no reason. Fiddler is just the only thing I've used (and in an extremely limited capacity). I don't even know if Fiddler and Wireshark are complete overlaps in terms of functionality, to be honest, or if they do somewhat different things

indeed

OMG, I must need more coffee. In double checking the named pipes setting on the server, I saw it was disabled; enabling it and restarting the SQL Server service lets me connect on Win11 now. Though I'm curious why I was able to connect to it for years on Win10 without issue. I could have sworn it was enabled yesterday when I checked...

Don't want to throw in an extra 100 lines of code if it's just noise

When including the full connection error (including the state), should I include the full "program location" stack trace?

:-)

Yep, all of these things I have tried. I am also thinking packet inspection or traffic inspection via Fiddler or something might be the next necessary step

I will definitely search the site before asking (not a stranger to stringent curation on SE ;-))--it's been frustrating as most threads on the issue cover scenarios where no machine can connect to the SQL Server due to it being new or incorrectly configured

Thanks both--yeah, my situation is a little confusing. We have SQL servers configured that work fine (e.g. can be connected to) from Windows 10 machines. But new Windows 11 machines in our env are locked down and then opened up as needed via whitelisting policies (rather than the inverse for Win10 in our environment where we locked down specific things), and I can't connect to some SQL server environments from SSMS in Win11, with a connection error (MSSQL Server Error 5 - Access is denied).

Hi all, if I have a question about SSMS connections to SQL servers being blocked by firewall/network settings, is that something I can ask about troubleshooting here on DBA.SE? Or should that be asked on Server Fault or somewhere else?

Thanks

Can someone with privileges consider protecting this question? diy.stackexchange.com/questions/207528/… It's gotten two bad/non-answers in the last 15 minutes