How many times have you heard from one of your married friends who is being left by their spouse, "We were just toxic together." Probably as many times as you've heard, "He/She was just toxic for me." People complain, "I'm just not happy. I deserve to be happy." So many of my friends, as of late, have had these things said to them, usually followed by, "I don't love you anymore." For good measure they might even throw in a, "You are controlling and abusive, I never loved you." These are some of the most selfish, and injurious accusations I've heard in a long time. These are also very sinful and rebellious. They are definitely not Christian sentiments. I believe they are selfish and used as a cop out. It is the lie they tell themselves, and others to not put in the hard, sanctifying and gospel exemplifying work that is needed for a life-long covenant between them and God.
I'd expect to hear this vitriol coming from the lost, but we often hear it coming from professing Christians. I've even seen several articles on supposedly Christian websites that advocate divorcing a toxic person. Have they forgotten that everyone is a, "toxic person?" Have they forgotten the power of the gospel? Have they forgotten that God hates divorce? If they are saved, and acting/feeling like this then, they are in rebellion, and will be disciplined by God. If they are false converts, they will receive their just punishment in Hell, where God will be just and right to pour out His wrath on them for all eternity.
Of course you are in a toxic relationship. You are a toxic sinner. Of course your spouse is toxic. They are a sinner. When you put two sinners together in a room they are going to sin. They are going to be selfish, prideful, arrogant, idolatrous, and petty. Of course you aren't happy. You are expecting another person to make you happy. Guess what… a sinful person will always let you down. You will never be fulfilled by another human being. You can only find the contentment you are looking for in God and His gospel.
Oh, and here is another big shocker, regardless of what you've heard, you don't deserve to be happy! You are a sinner, like everyone else. God is perfectly just, holy, righteous, and good. You have broken His laws and are a guilty sinner. You and I deserve to be punished. We don't deserve to be happy. You and I deserve to be killed by God, and be sent to Hell for eternity, just like everyone else on the planet. You see, it is a sin problem, not a relationship problem. The only way it is a relationship problem is that as sinners we are enemies of God. If we want peace with Him, we must repent and believe in the work of Christ on the cross, to justify us with God.
We read all of the New Age drivel on websites, blogs, and social media. We listen to podcasts, and self-help gurus on the radio. It validates, and justifies the selfish, idolatrous, sinful, thoughts. Why do people consume these things? I know why I am here. I am here to combat the darkness that has been enslaving people, and ruining marriages, children, and families for far too long in this country. Why are you here? Are you here to flirt with the darkness? Do you want to hear something that will give you permission to give up and give in to sin? Are you being tempted by the New Age malarkey? Are you setting up false teachers to tickle your ears? Wake up! We need to stop behaving like selfish children and truly understand what this means, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Do you think you are something special? Do you think you deserved His love? If it weren't for His grace, we'd all be lost.
Don't get me wrong. I am not telling someone who is getting physically abused to stay in the home. If you are getting physically abused you should be separated. "Separated" does no mean, "Oh goody, time to commit adultery." Being separated for a time can be necessary, but it is always supposed to be temporary. If your spouse has committed adultery you may divorce them. If your spouse is an unbeliever, and walks out on you, you may divorce. If you really understand grace, even though you may divorce them, if they are repentant, you will forgive them and give grace to them, just like the way Christ gave grace to you, instead of what you deserve.
I don't agree with the modern definition of psychological abuse. Pretty much any difficult thing you talk about with a person can be deemed abusive anymore. Obviously if you are a Christian you should not hurt your spouse emotionally. You should not intentionally or maliciously hurt their feelings. It is sinful to do so. Your sin does not justify a divorce though unless it fits the criteria mentioned above. Christ endured our scorn and ridicule while on the cross, dying for a bunch of sinners. Do we think we deserve better than Christ?
Our only hope in marriage is Jesus Christ. Our only hope in life and death is Jesus Christ. If we have been saved from our sins by Christ, then we are obliged to demonstrate the same type of sacrificial love for our spouse. We love them without any expectations of return on our investment. We love them because Christ loves us. Our sins put Christ on the cross. It is as if we had the hammer and nails in our hands and put Him up there ourselves. He died for us, knowing that we hated Him. He got nothing worth having in saving us. By God's sanctifying work, the Holy Spirit conforms us to the will and word of God, to be Christlike to the world, including our spouse. We love them even though they don't deserve it. We demonstrate grace to them when they don't deserve it. Marriage is a covenant with God, you, and your spouse, for the rest of your life. It is a picture of the gospel, to be lived out in front of the world. The husband is the head of the wife, the way that Christ is the head of the Church. Christ died to save the Church, His bride. The wife is the representation of the Church, submitting to the Bridegroom who saved her for Himself. So love one another sacrificially, and stop all of this selfish carnal nonsense. Obey God and glorify Him in your marriage.
I heard Creflo's Sermon on Toxic Relationships, it did not sit well in my spirit, not because of my situation but it also contradicted the teachings of the Bible and a book called, "for Married Men Only." by tony evans. Or even the Prophet who had a whore/prostitute for a wife, God still held him fast even though clearly it was a toxic relationship. We'd all be going to Hell if he decided that our relationship with Him was toxic. It was because of Christ's unconditional love that we have salvation in Him.
I don't know much about Tony Evans, but Creflo Dollar is a false teacher and should be avoided at all costs.
Thank you for the clarification, Kenneth Hagin a similar branch also spoke against Creflo and his counterparts.
I was reading about this in Biblehub.com and God was clearly mad against Israel cheating on Him, (They were prosperous during this time period, hence the Prosperity message of the time).
1The word of the LORD which came to Hosea the son of Beeri, during the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
If toxic relationships were meant to be put away, God would have never restored Israel and claim it as His bride as the Word talks in Jeremiah 29:11 and in Revelations.


In 2016 a small Cape Cod style home was given to Elements Theatre Company for the express purpose of renovation for use as a much needed rehearsal space. What became known as The Joppa Project was born and work began. The actors of the company themselves led the way and with the help of many volunteers and donors were able to create space for two large rehearsal rooms, a meeting/conference room, expansive back deck, small servicable kitchen, a laundry area and bathrooms. Soaring ceilings, Asian inspired architectural details and a stunning recycled birch wood floor tell the story of dedicated artists at work to create a building with an ambiance and beauty that nurtures the art of theater.
Today Joppa stands next to the Chapter House of the Community of Jesus, reflecting the exterior style and materials of surrounding structures, yet unique in its function and design. Within the walls Elements Theatre Company rehearses current productions, hones acting skills in workshops and welcomes visiting teachers and students for an annual Acting Intensive Retreat. The lower level rehearsal space is often alive as young people take part in acting classes and give impromptu performances for their instructors. A building can become much more than an architectural space when it houses the creative energy of the arts and Joppa fulfills this goal.
If you would like to come by for a tour, please give us a call at 508-247-3147. We'd be very grateful for your interest, help, and support.
Elements Theatre Company is committed to the diligent work required for excellence, bringing meaningful performances of theatre, both classical and non-classical, to life.
Thank you for believing in the transforming power of the Arts!
Following are photos of the process from taking off the outdoor lights and shingles on the original house, taking out the top floor and stairway after the trusses were built and in place, to expanding the spaces and transforming the building with rehearsal rooms upstairs and downstairs, a kitchen and meeting room, bathrooms and laundry area for costume care, and a storage room.


text:
The Effective Digestive
A humble cookie with healing powers.
By Jen Karetnick | September 17, 2015 | 12:00pm
Like many women, I have a delicate digestive tract. I have no difficulties shoveling in the food. It's the elimination that's problematic. And disruptions to my regular schedule, such as plane travel, or discomfort, like staying in an unpalatable setting, can cause delays in my system that would put American Airlines to shame.
Of course, this is all kinds of ironic for a food-and-travel writer. But then, life is a series of poignant incongruities, isn't it? I vividly recall a whitewater rafting trip on the Salmon River in Idaho. It was supposed to be "glamping," that portmanteau of glamorous camping. But when the guides introduced us to the toilet tent – literally a box with a teepee draped over it – the women on the trip exchanged knowing looks that said yup, we'd be constipated for a week (the other option being a shovel). When the lodge where we were staying on the last night came into view, we collectively broke into a grateful run.
I expected a similar situation when I traveled to Canterbury in Kent, England, this past July. I'd been warned that the accommodations in this ancient, walled city were on the negative side of lacking; after all, there's only so much you can do with fifteenth-century buildings. It's true that my room at The Victoria House was about the size of my walk-in closet at home, and about as ventilated. The shower door had been derailed by someone who was perhaps marginally larger than me, and I'm five-foot-two. Add in that I'd be touring for the first seven days with my parents, who had come overseas to meet me, and then presenting four workshops at an academic conference for the last three, and I expected a colon filled with the equivalent of cement.
Oddly, it didn't happen that way. I hit the ground running. Well, not running, as the euphemism implies, but after the first day or so, I was as regular as if I'd been starting the day with café Cubano. At first, I put it down to the welcoming atmosphere at the hotel. Though hardly a five-star establishment, the staff was bend-backwards pleasant; there's a pub with outlets on the ground floor where no one cared if I worked all evening on a laptop over a couple of pints; and the room, as teensy as it was, was meticulously cleaned daily. Housekeeping also always left a package of coarsely textured cookies on the desk next to the electric kettle and tea bags every evening. I felt it was my duty as a polite, paying guest to consume them.
It occurred to me about four days into my stay that perhaps the digestives, what the British call these semi-sweet, whole-wheat (or whole-meal in the UK) biscuits, had some beneficial properties. I'd always enjoyed a digestive now and then, especially those coated on one side with milk chocolate, ever since my sister had spent a semester in London when she was in college several decades ago and I visited her. But it had never occurred to me to question why they were called that in particular.
After a little research, I discovered that the digestive was indeed developed to aid people with poorly functioning metabolisms like me. In 1839, two Scottish scientists developed them using a goodly dose of sodium bicarbonate to prevent indigestion. Bakers subsequently added diastatic malt extract, which they assumed "digested" the starch in the dough, a process called saccharification. The baking powder idea was a failed experiment; once the cookies change chemically in the oven, the properties are lost. But the fibrous content of the biscuits turned out to be an aid.
Depending on the brand, however, some digestives may actually be more effective than others – a fact I discovered when I returned to England for a second time, accompanying my son so he could play soccer for a week. I stayed in a Travelodge next to an Aldi, and the only digestives I could acquire were the store's Belmont brand, similar in look, flavor and structure to the popular McVitie's brand. Sadly, while they're tasty indeed – and I managed to find three varieties, including those with dark and milk chocolate – they didn't alleviate the angst of navigating Miami and Heathrow airports with twenty teenagers, then staying in a room that smelled like cat urine and had neither phone nor hairdryer. Nevertheless, I diligently ate my cookies, hoping for an appetizing cure.
As it turns out, the original commercial digestives, starting with Huntley & Palmers in 1876, included more of the whole grain, given that millers were less sophisticated then at separating the grain into parts. Today, finely milled flour is the rule of thumb. So if you're actually eating them for a singular purpose, read the label to see if whole-meal flour is the first ingredient and if oats, bran or wheat germ – all good signs that the fiber will be helpful – are added. Sainsbury's is one brand that roughs up the texture with oats. Tesco's Everyday Value also includes oatmeal, and as a bonus, deletes the artificial elements and hydrogenated fats (but keep in mind that the brand's regular digestives are free of oats and full of preservatives). Hovis includes wheat germ in its recipe, which is also accommodating for those of us with a sensitive nature.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to get any brand but McVitie's in the States for a reasonable price. On the other hand, in the comfort of my own home, I don't need digestives for any reason other than enjoyment. Which is why I went to the Aldi the night before I left England for the second time and bought as many tubes of digestives as would fit in my suitcase, brought over half-empty for just that tasty purpose.
Jen Karetnick is a Miami-based lifestyle writer, poet and author of 14 books, including the cookbook Mango (University Press of Florida, 2014).
Image: SimonQ CC BY-NC-ND

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


So yesterday while in the car I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh. He's going on about Jon Meacham's latest article about how George H.W. Bush had a lot to do with the strong economy of the mid-1990's.
His tones are typical Rush. Meacham's already "in the tank for the lefties". This must mean he's got a book on Bush coming. Oh, look here, a couple paragraphs later it says he does and Rush tries to first claim he had no knowledge of that but, more to the point, attempts to ridicule it as somehow a negative.
He's trying to claim that no one back then gave Bush 41 any credit for the economy we experienced.
1. That's total garbage. I lived through that period. Many outlets made quite a bit about Bush's bad timing. He inherited the crash of Ronald Reagan's last years and the Savings and Loan scandal that ensued. Then, when the election came around, the economy was so bad that by the time it started to recover it was simply too late to help his re-election campaign. Add to that some really bad gaffs like the infamous bit about him having no connection to the economy underscored by his having no idea how much a gallon of milk was or the admission that, upon visiting a grocery store, he'd never before seen these amazing scanner things they have.
2. The bigger issue is one of responsibility and hypocrisy. During this show Rush was going about how Bush 41 never gets any credit for the economy of the mid-90's. He makes the claim that Democrats, like Meacham, will do anything to keep from admitting that a Republican had anything to do with success. This has got to be the most shining political example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Limbaugh, and much of the conservative media, never met a Democrat who could, in their view, understand a crosswalk sign let alone be responsible for any good in this country. Quite the contrary. Asked why, after total congressional control for a decade and complete control for 6 years, that the economy wasn't blistering along as per all their predictions, their answer is hilarious. Why it's simple, they'll say, Jimmy Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to give bad people bad loans and Bill Clinton gutted it further. Those acts caused the economy to under-perform under Republican rule. Amazing. A bill 34 years ago, that saw direction from Republican leadership for 24 of those years, is the reason Republicans have failed to deliver.
There's also a key contradiction in that explanation regarding Clinton but let's get back to that in a minute. Rush pointed out that Bush 41 had all the right people on board regarding the economy. However, his problem was a Democratic Congress and Speaker Tom Foley. They destroyed everything he tried to do. He also made it quite clear that Clinton doesn't deserve any credit for the economy of the 90's. That credit belongs to Newt Gingrich.
Anything good that happens in a mixed environment is the doing of the Republicans. The good of the Reagan years is all his doing. He was the President. Forget that the House was controlled by the Democrats for his entire 8 years and that the Democrats had both houses for his entire second term. No, Reagan is the only person responsible for the success of the 80's.
Anything bad that happens in a mixed environment is the doing of the Democrats. The lousy economy under Bush 41 has nothing to do with Reagan or Bush. It has everything to do with those lousy Dems running Congress. Reagan had no problem working with Speaker Tip O'Neill (D) but poor Bush 41 couldn't do anything with arch-nemesis Speaker Tom Foley.
Then we get back to Clinton. He ushers in a period of prosperity that eclipsed the Reagan years but, of course, he had nothing to do with it. People like Rush simply cannot accept that. The contradiction above is that, just like Reagan, Clinton lead with a Congress entirely against him in his second term. But here, magically, the benefit is all given to Gingrich.
Speaking of Meacham and liberals Rush said (as he often does), "I know these people. I know how they think. I know what they're going to do before they know what they're going to do." Well Rush, I know you. I know how you and those like you think. I know what you're going to do before you know what you're going to do. If there were 40 years of crushing poverty and total depression under nearly universal Republican rule except for a single Democrat you can bet your last dollar that these people would find a way to blame it all on that one person.
Rush's point with Meacham was that it took the allure of money to get him to see the truth. He claimed, without any facts, that Meacham likely never gave Bush 41 any credit for the boom of the 90's. Now that he's writing a book that needs to be seen as accurate he's willing to admit the truth.
I can't speak to what Meacham may or may not have said back then but contrary to his commentary many in the "drive-by media" noted the part Bush 41 played in the economy. He simply didn't have any luck with regard to timing on it. So now Meacham is a bad guy for writing an honest book. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Typical.
Reagan v. Obama. The Fight Continues.


text:
Q: Using circular progress bar with masked image? I am working on a circular progress bar for custom game center achievements view and I have kind of "hit the wall". I am struggling with this for over two hours and still cannot get it to work.
The thing is, that I need a circular progress bar, where I would be able to set (at least) the track(fill) image. Because my progress fill is a rainbow like gradient and I am not able to achieve the same results using only code.
I was messing with CALayers, and drawRect method, however I wasn't successful. Could you please give me a little guidance?
Here are examples of the circular progress bars:
https://github.com/donnellyk/KDGoalBar
https://github.com/danielamitay/DACircularProgress
I just need the fill to be an masked image, depending on the progress. If you could even make it work that the progress would be animated, that would be really cool, but I don't require help with that :)
Thanks, Nick

A: You basically just need to construct a path that defines the area to be filled (e.g. using CGPathAddArc), clip the graphics context to that path using CGContextClip and then just draw your image.
Here's an example of a drawRect: method you could use in a custom view:
- (void)drawRect:(CGRect)rect
{
    CGContextRef ctx = UIGraphicsGetCurrentContext();

    CGFloat progress = 0.7f; //This would be a property of your view
    CGFloat innerRadiusRatio = 0.5f; //Adjust as needed

    //Construct the path:
    CGMutablePathRef path = CGPathCreateMutable();
    CGFloat startAngle = -M_PI_2;
    CGFloat endAngle = -M_PI_2 + MIN(1.0f, progress) * M_PI * 2;
    CGFloat outerRadius = CGRectGetWidth(self.bounds) * 0.5f - 1.0f;
    CGFloat innerRadius = outerRadius * innerRadiusRatio;
    CGPoint center = CGPointMake(CGRectGetMidX(self.bounds), CGRectGetMidY(self.bounds));
    CGPathAddArc(path, NULL, center.x, center.y, innerRadius, startAngle, endAngle, false);
    CGPathAddArc(path, NULL, center.x, center.y, outerRadius, endAngle, startAngle, true);
    CGPathCloseSubpath(path);
    CGContextAddPath(ctx, path);
    CGPathRelease(path);

    //Draw the image, clipped to the path:
    CGContextSaveGState(ctx);
    CGContextClip(ctx);
    CGContextDrawImage(ctx, self.bounds, [[UIImage imageNamed:@"RadialProgressFill"] CGImage]);
    CGContextRestoreGState(ctx);
}

To keep it simple, I've hard-coded a few things – you obviously need to add a property for progress and call setNeedsDisplay in the setter. This also assumes that you have an image named RadialProgressFill in your project.
Here's an example of what that would roughly look like:

I hope you have a better-looking background image. ;)

A: The solution that omz proposed worked laggy when I was trying to animate property, so I kept looking.
Found great solution - to use Quartz Core framework and wrapper called CADisplayLink. "This class is specifically made for animations where "your data is extremely likely to change in every frame". It attempts to send a message to a target every time something is redrawn to the screen"
Source
And the library that work that way.
Edit:
But there is more efficient solution. To animate mask which is applied on layer with the image. I don't know why I didn't do it from the beginning. CABasicAnimation works faster than any custom drawing. Here is my implementation:
class ProgressBar: UIView {
    var imageView:UIImageView!

    var maskLayer: CAShapeLayer!
    var currentValue: CGFloat = 1

    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
        updateUI()
    }

    required init?(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) {
        super.init(coder: aDecoder)
        updateUI()
    }

    func updateUI(){
        makeGradient()
        setUpMask()
    }

    func animateCircle(strokeEnd: CGFloat) {
        let oldStrokeEnd = maskLayer.strokeEnd
        maskLayer.strokeEnd = strokeEnd

        //override strokeEnd implicit animation
        let animation = CABasicAnimation(keyPath: "strokeEnd")
        animation.duration = 0.5
        animation.fromValue = oldStrokeEnd
        animation.toValue = strokeEnd
        animation.timingFunction = CAMediaTimingFunction(name: kCAMediaTimingFunctionEaseInEaseOut)
        maskLayer.add(animation, forKey: "animateCircle")

        currentValue = strokeEnd
    }

    func setUpMask(){

        let circlePath = UIBezierPath(arcCenter: CGPoint(x: frame.size.width / 2.0, y: frame.size.height / 2.0),
                                      radius: (frame.size.width - 10)/2,
                                      startAngle: -CGFloat.pi/2,
                                      endAngle: CGFloat.pi*1.5,
                                      clockwise: true)

        maskLayer = CAShapeLayer()
        maskLayer.path = circlePath.cgPath
        maskLayer.fillColor = UIColor.clear.cgColor
        maskLayer.strokeColor = UIColor.red.cgColor
        maskLayer.lineWidth = 8.0;
        maskLayer.strokeEnd = currentValue
        maskLayer.lineCap = "round"
        imageView.layer.mask = maskLayer
    }

    func makeGradient(){
        imageView = UIImageView(image: UIImage(named: "gradientImage"))
        imageView.frame = bounds
        imageView.contentMode = .scaleAspectFill
        addSubview(imageView)
    }

}

By the way, if you are looking to become better at animations, I suggest a great book "IOS Core Animation: Advanced Techniques
Book by Nick Lockwood"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Program compiled with -fPIC crashes while stepping over thread-local variable in GDB This is a very strange problem which occurs only when the program is compiled with -fPIC option.
Using gdb I'm able to print thread local variables but stepping over them leads to crash.
thread.c
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>

#define MAX_NUMBER_OF_THREADS 2

struct mystruct {
    int   x;
    int   y;
};

__thread struct mystruct obj;

void* threadMain(void *args) {
    obj.x = 1;
    obj.y = 2;

    printf("obj.x = %d\n", obj.x);
    printf("obj.y = %d\n", obj.y);

    return NULL;
}

int main(int argc, char *arg[]) {
    pthread_t tid[MAX_NUMBER_OF_THREADS];
    int i = 0;

    for(i = 0; i < MAX_NUMBER_OF_THREADS; i++) {
        pthread_create(&tid[i], NULL, threadMain, NULL);
    }

    for(i = 0; i < MAX_NUMBER_OF_THREADS; i++) {
        pthread_join(tid[i], NULL);
    }

    return 0;
}

Compile it using the following: gcc -g -lpthread thread.c -o thread -fPIC
Then while debugging it: gdb ./thread
(gdb) b threadMain
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4006a5: file thread.c, line 15.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /junk/test/thread
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
[New Thread 0x7ffff7fc7700 (LWP 31297)]
[Switching to Thread 0x7ffff7fc7700 (LWP 31297)]

Breakpoint 1, threadMain (args=0x0) at thread.c:15
15      obj.x = 1;
(gdb) p obj.x
$1 = 0
(gdb) n

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
threadMain (args=0x0) at thread.c:15
15      obj.x = 1;

Although, if I compile it without -fPIC then this problem doesn't occur.
Before anybody asks me why am I using -fPIC, this is just a reduced test case. We have a huge component which compiles into a so file which then plugs into another component. Therefore, fPIC is necessary.
There is no functional impact because of it, only that debugging is near impossible.
Platform Information: Linux 2.6.32-431.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Nov 10 22:19:54 EST 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.5 (Santiago)
Reproducible on the following as well
Linux 3.13.0-66-generic #108-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 7 15:20:27
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.7.1-0ubuntu5~14.04.2) 7.7.1
gcc (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04) 4.8.4

A: The problem lies deep in the bowels of GAS, the GNU assembler, and how it generates DWARF debug information.
The compiler, GCC, has the responsibility of generating a specific sequence of instructions for a position-independent thread-local access, which is documented in the document ELF Handling for Thread-Local Storage, page 22, section 4.1.6: x86-64 General Dynamic TLS Model. This sequence is:
0x00 .byte 0x66
0x01 leaq  x@tlsgd(%rip),%rdi
0x08 .word 0x6666
0x0a rex64
0x0b call __tls_get_addr@plt

, and is the way it is because the 16 bytes it occupies leave space for backend/assembler/linker optimizations. Indeed, your compiler generates the following assembler for threadMain():
threadMain:
.LFB2:
        .file 1 "thread.c"
        .loc 1 14 0
        .cfi_startproc
        pushq   %rbp
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
        .cfi_offset 6, -16
        movq    %rsp, %rbp
        .cfi_def_cfa_register 6
        subq    $16, %rsp
        movq    %rdi, -8(%rbp)
        .loc 1 15 0
        .byte   0x66
        leaq    obj@tlsgd(%rip), %rdi
        .value  0x6666
        rex64
        call    __tls_get_addr@PLT
        movl    $1, (%rax)
        .loc 1 16 0
        ...

The assembler, GAS, then relaxes this code, which contains a function call (!), down to just two instructions. These are:

*

*a mov having an fs:-segment override, and

*a lea
, in the final assembly. They occupy between themselves 16 bytes in total, demonstrating why the General Dynamic Model instruction sequence is designed to require 16 bytes.
(gdb) disas/r threadMain
Dump of assembler code for function threadMain:
   0x00000000004007f0 <+0>:     55      push   %rbp
   0x00000000004007f1 <+1>:     48 89 e5        mov    %rsp,%rbp
   0x00000000004007f4 <+4>:     48 83 ec 10     sub    $0x10,%rsp
   0x00000000004007f8 <+8>:     48 89 7d f8     mov    %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
   0x00000000004007fc <+12>:    64 48 8b 04 25 00 00 00 00      mov    %fs:0x0,%rax
   0x0000000000400805 <+21>:    48 8d 80 f8 ff ff ff    lea    -0x8(%rax),%rax
   0x000000000040080c <+28>:    c7 00 01 00 00 00       movl   $0x1,(%rax)

So far, everything has been done correctly. The problem now begins as GAS generates DWARF debug information for your particular assembler code.

*

*While parsing line-by-line in binutils-x.y.z/gas/read.c, function void
read_a_source_file (char *name), GAS encounters .loc 1 15 0, the statement that begins the next line, and runs the handler void dwarf2_directive_loc (int dummy ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) in dwarf2dbg.c. Unfortunately, the handler does not unconditionally emit debug information for the current offset within the "fragment" (frag_now) of machine code it is currently building. It could have done this by calling dwarf2_emit_insn(0), but the .loc handler currently only does so if it sees multiple .loc directives consecutively. Instead, in our case it continues on to the next line, leaving the debug information unemitted.

*On the next line it sees the .byte 0x66 directive of the General Dynamic sequence. This is not, in and of itself, part of an instruction, despite representing the data16 instruction prefix in x86 assembly. GAS acts upon it with the handler cons_worker(), and the fragment increases from 12 bytes to 13 in size.

*On the next line it sees a true instruction, leaq, which is parsed by calling the macro assemble_one() that maps to void md_assemble (char *line) in gas/config/tc-i386.c. At the very end of that function, output_insn() is called, which itself finally calls dwarf2_emit_insn(0) and causes debug information to be emitted at last. A new Line Number Statement (LNS) is begun that claims that line 15 began at function-start-address plus previous fragment size, but since we passed over the .byte statement before doing so, the fragment is 1 byte too large, and the computed offset for the first instruction of line 15 is therefore 1 byte off.

*Some time later GAS relaxes the Global Dynamic Sequence to the final instruction sequence that starts with mov fs:0x0, %rax. The code size and all offsets remain unchanged because both sequences of instructions are 16 bytes. The debug information is unchanged, and still wrong.

GDB, when it reads the Line Number Statements, is told that the prologue of threadMain(), which is associated with the line 14 on which is found its signature, ends where line 15 begins. GDB dutifully plants a breakpoint at that location, but unfortunately it is 1 byte too far.
When run without a breakpoint, the program runs normally, and sees
64 48 8b 04 25 00 00 00 00      mov    %fs:0x0,%rax

. Correctly placing the breakpoint would involve saving and replacing the first byte of an instruction with int3 (opcode 0xcc), leaving
cc                              int3
48 8b 04 25 00 00 00 00         mov    (0x0),%rax

. The normal step-over sequence would then involve restoring the first byte of the instruction, setting the program counter eip to the address of that breakpoint, single-stepping, re-inserting the breakpoint, then continuing the program.
However, when GDB plants the breakpoint at the incorrect address 1 byte too far, the program sees instead
64 cc                           fs:int3
8b 04 25 00 00 00 00            <garbage>

which is a wierd but still valid breakpoint. That's why you didn't see SIGILL (illegal instruction).
Now, when GDB attempts to step over, it restores the instruction byte, sets the PC to the address of the breakpoint, and this is what it sees now:
64                              fs:                # CPU DOESN'T SEE THIS!
48 8b 04 25 00 00 00 00         mov    (0x0),%rax  # <- CPU EXECUTES STARTING HERE!
# BOOM! SEGFAULT!

Because GDB restarted execution one byte too far, the CPU does not decode the fs: instruction prefix byte, and instead executes mov (0x0),%rax with the default segment, which is ds: (data). This immediately results in a read from address 0, the null pointer. The SIGSEGV promptly follows.
All due credits to Mark Plotnick for essentially nailing this.

The solution that was retained is to binary-patch cc1, gcc's actual C compiler, to emit data16 instead of .byte 0x66. This results in GAS parsing the prefix and instruction combination as a single unit, yielding the correct offset in the debug information.


text:
League of Ireland Premier Division 2017 var den 33:e säsongen av irländska högstaligan i fotboll. Säsongen startade fredagen 24 februari och slutade den 27 oktober 2017. Den 17 oktober stod det klart att Cork City tog hem ligan och titeln, då man spelade oavgjort (0–0) hemma mot Derry City.

Tabeller

Poängtabell

Resultattabeller

Omgång 1–22

Omgång 23–33

Källor
Officiell hemsida

2017 i Irland
2017 i Storbritannien
Fotbollssäsongen 2015
2017

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Creating a New Column in a Pandas Dataframe in a more pythonic way I am trying to find a better, more pythonic way of accomplishing the following:
I want to add a new column to business_df called 'dot_prod', which is the dot product of a fixed vector (fixed_vector) and a vector from another data frame (rating_df). The rows of both business_df and rating_df have the same index values (business_id).
I have this loop which appears to work, however I know it's super clumsy (and takes forever). Essentially it loops through once for every row, calculates the dot product, then dumps it into the business_df dataframe.
n=0
for i in range(business_df.shape[0]):
        dot_prod = np.dot(fixed_vector, rating_df.iloc[n])
        business_df['dot_prod'][n] = dot_prod
        n+=1

A: >>> fixed_vector = [1, 2, 3]
>>> df = pd.DataFrame({'col1' : [1,2], 'col2' : [3,4], 'col3' : [5,6]})
>>> df
   col1  col2  col3
0     1     3     5
1     2     4     6
>>> df['col4'] = np.dot(fixed_vector, [df['col1'], df['col2'], df['col3']])
>>> df
   col1  col2  col3  col4
0     1     3     5    22
1     2     4     6    28

A: IIUC, you are looking for apply across axis=1 like:
business_df['dot_prod'] = rating_df.apply(lambda x: np.dot(fixed_vector, x), axis=1)


It is common for many employees to provide a two-week notice to their boss if they have decided to quit their job. It is the standard way and it prevents any disruptions or burdens on the company, the departments, and staff meant to deal with transitions and replacements.
However, many employees still doubt if they can be fired even if they have given the notice. The short answer is yes. The reason is that most employees are still employed At-Will (discussed later) and they don't even know that. And even if you filed a lot of free notice, you are still going to be fired.
Is It Possible to Be Fired After Giving a Notice?
Even if you give a notice to your employer that you are quitting your job (it might be a two weeks notice or a notice to quit), your employer can still fire you even if you already give any kind of notice.
This is thanks to two reasons.
One, your employment might be under an At-Will contract this means that the company can fire you anytime for any reasons or no reasons at all.
Two, while you are in the transition phase, your employer might tell you to leave right away, maybe for personality conflict or other reasons.
In some other instances, there are companies who will appreciate you for giving them a notice in regards to your resignation notice because of the concerns about the company's reputation.
In regards to that, the employers must also be very careful about how they will handle the resignation of their employee because they know that the departing employee has the capability of sharing exclusive and private information with their competitors.
In addition, the resignation notice of the employee may have a huge impact on the whole company, that is why the departure of the employee must under the employer's control.
Here the Four reasons why you should never quit without notice.
There are important people that matter. Your boss is not the only one who will take your resignation very seriously. Your colleagues, your clients, your direct report, and your boss's peers will also take it very seriously and they might get mad because you left them hanging without even a warning notice.
You will run into these people again. There's a huge chance that you will meet again the same person who get stuck trying to figure out how to finish the project you left unfinished, and trust me things will never be the same again for both of you.
You might want to work with the same company again. It is really inevitable that you want to come back to the company where you resigned, maybe because you found your groove and thought that you are now more capable of doing the job. But you can't because the company might have a bad record for you.
There are benefits in giving a notice. if you quit without notice letter, you may not be entitled anymore in receiving any vacation payout or planned bonus that you would otherwise receive if you have just given the notice.


Ensures that each dean has invdividual college plans for academic insruction continuation.
Ensures that the Academic Affairs Continuity of Operations Plan is posted and widely communicated.
Develops emergency training for Academic Affairs faculty and staff.
Provides updated contact tree to Provost's Office staff and direct reports.
In case of evacuation resulting in the activation of the off-site recovery location, serves on Loyola Off-site Recovery Team (LORE) Phase l team with president, vice presidents, deans and University Senate Chair/Designee. The LORE 1 will evacuate to an off-site location, currently in Dallas, TX.
In case of suspension, establishes immediate communication with the deans and vice provosts. Works with deans and Emergency Management Team to ensure timely updates to faculty, staff, students, and families.
In consultation with deans, develops plans for resumption of instruction on campus.
Ensures that faculty and staff have prompt access to campus as soon as it is feasible so that they can expedite the return to normal operations.
In evacuations/suspensions lasting more than two weeks, establishes contact and consults with SCAP and the Executive Committee of the Senate through Blackboard or other electronic communications.
Communicates necessary changes in academic policy and procedures caused by the evacuation/suspension.
Upon resumption of on campus operations, obtains feedback from faculty and staff by utilizing the University Senate, Administrative Senate, Standing Council for Academic Planning, Deans' Council, Provost's Council and electronic questionnaire to all faculty and staff.


Shriya flaunting her bewitching curves even post-marriage!
Protection: All original content on https://www.apherald.com/Movies/ViewArticle/311723/Shriya-flaunting-her-bewitching-curves-even-post-marriage-/ is created by the website owner or published under permission including but not limited to text, design, code, images, photographs and videos are considered to be the Intellectual Property of the website owner, whether copyrighted or not, and are protected by DMCA.com Protection Pro Service using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Title 17 Chapter 512 (c)(3). Reproduction or re-publication of this content is prohibited without permission.