Tower | Ground Control Station for Android Devices | Cloud Storage library

You can capture these strings using

"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::aws-controltower-logs-12345656-us-east-1/o-1234/AWSLogs/*/*"

The 1st "*" enables all account numbers.

Ansible Tower does not offer directory hierarchy for templates and workflows.

Right, according the documentation the Job Templates view is a list only.

This list is sorted alphabetically by name, but you can sort by other criteria, or search by various fields and attributes of a template.

If using Labels

Labels can be used to group and filter job templates and completed jobs in the Tower display.

are not helpful

I know we could use labels, but their use seems a bit tedious and assume that users already knows label for template they look for.

there might the possibility to introduce a structured Naming Convention for TEMPLATES / NAME.

Since Job Templates are usually for automating administrative tasks like rollouts, updates, restarts, etc. you could have a structure there like DEP_ROLENAME_TASKNAME. This would also be possible for TEMPLATES DESCRIPTION. It is than easier to look them up via UI, as well REST API

Last time I checked there was no way to pass a struct to a constructor function (see here this 2018 answer). It says that:

...you cannot pass struct to a constructor as it will be receiving its input outside from the blockchain. Only the private and internal functions can expect structs as input parameters.

The solution is to use "primitive" data types as inputs. For your particular case the constructor function could be modified to accept one NFT object like:

First, it's good to note the difference between equivalence and equisatisfiability. In general, converting an arbitrary boolean formula (say, something in DNF) to CNF can result in a exponential blow-up in size.

This blow-up is the issue with your from_dnf approach: whenever you handle another product term, each of the literals in that product demands a new copy of the current cnf clause set (to which it will add itself in every clause). If you have n product terms of size k, the growth is O(k^n).

In your case n is actually a function of k!. What's kept as a product term is filtered to those satisfying the view constraint, but overall the runtime of your program is roughly in the region of O(k^f(k!)). Even if f grows logarithmically, this is still O(k^(k lg k)) and not quite ideal!

Because you're asking "is this satisfiable?", you don't need an equivalent formula but merely an equisatisfiable one. This is some new formula that is satisfiable if and only if the original is, but which might not be satisfied by the same assignments.

For example, (a ∨ b) and (a ∨ c) ∧ (¬b) are each obviously satisfiable, so they are equisatisfiable. But setting b true satisfies the first and falsifies the second, so they are not equivalent. Furthermore the first doesn't even have c as a variable, again making it not equivalent to the second.

This relaxation is enough to replace this exponential blow-up with a linear-sized translation instead.

The critical idea is the use of extension variables. These are fresh variables (i.e., not already present in the formula) that allow us to abbreviate expressions, so we don't end up making multiple copies of them in the translation. Since the new variable is not present in the original, we'll no longer have an equivalent formula; but because the variable will be true if and only if the expression is, it will be equisatisfiable.

If we wanted to use x as an abbreviation of y, we'd state x ≡ y. This is the same as x → y and y → x, which is the same as (¬x ∨ y) ∧ (¬y ∨ x), which is already in CNF.

Consider the abbreviation for a product term: x ≡ (a ∧ b). This is x → (a ∧ b) and (a ∧ b) → x, which works out to be three clauses: (¬x ∨ a) ∧ (¬x ∨ b) ∧ (¬a ∨ ¬b ∨ x). In general, abbreviating a product term of k literals with x will produce k binary clauses expressing that x implies each of them, and one (k+1)-clause expressing that all together they imply x. This is linear in k.

To really see why this helps, try converting (a ∧ b ∧ c) ∨ (d ∧ e ∧ f) ∨ (g ∧ h ∧ i) to an equivalent CNF with and without an extension variable for the first product term. Of course, we won't just stop with one term: if we abbreviate each term then the result is precisely a single CNF clause: (x ∨ y ∨ z) where these each abbreviate a single product term. This is a lot smaller!

This approach can be used to turn any circuit into an equisatisfiable formula, linear in size and in CNF. This is called a Tseitin transformation. Your DNF formula is simply a circuit composed of a bunch of arbitrary fan-in AND gates, all feeding into a single arbitrary fan-in OR gate.

Best of all, although this formula is not equivalent due to additional variables, we can recover an assignment for the original formula by simply dropping the extension variables. It is sort of a 'best case' equisatisfiable formula, being a strict superset of the original.

To patch this into your code, I added:

collide_mask use the .rect and .mask object of the Spirte. Therefore the name of the Mask attribute must be mask, but not tower_mask or enemy_mask.
In addition, the objects must have an attribute named rect, which is a pygame.Rect object with the position of the sprite.
Also the super calls a missing from your class constructors. e.g.:

You will have to explicitly set the shapes of the tensors coming from tf.py_functions. Using None will allow variable input lengths. The Bert output dimension (384,) is, however, necessary:

Without testing your code, to me it looks like you have the echo statement wrong. Here is how I would do it:

Remove edges whose weight is larger than 15 miles, and keep edges whose weight is lower than 15 miles.

Now your problem is exactly the dominating set problem on the new graph.

In python, the graph library networkx offers two functions about dominating sets:

• networkx.dominating_set finds a dominating set of a given graph, but does not guarantee that this dominating set is the smallest;
• networkx.is_dominating_set checks that a given set of vertices is indeed a dominating set.