Why did the US support of Israel shift so dramatically?

Question: From what I remember reading, during the Kennedy administration, the US considered bombing or taking over Israel's suspected nuclear development sites. However, now, many people and both major parties in the US give Israel unconditional support. What caused this dramatic shift?
Comment: Was there any serious consideration to bombing the nuclear development sites? I feel that sort of claim requires some evidence to back it up as I have never heard of that before and I am guessing there are a lot of others who have never heard it as well. Because of that it is very hard to give a good answer.
Comment: you misrepresent Kennedy attitudes - he was actually already supportive of Israel, contrary to the previous administrations. I suggest that you add a reference regarding the bombing bit - as of now it lacks the context.
Comment: Your vague recollection that the *the US was considering bombing or taking over Israels suspected nuclear development sites* is almost certainly false. The closest is probably this: *the former Israel Air Force commander ... seriously entertained the fear that Kennedy might send U.S. airborne troops to Dimona, the home of Israel's nuclear complex* (Haaretz, [2019](https://archive.ph/pI4x3)). But that was merely a fear expressed by an Israeli commander, not something that was seriously considered by the US/Kennedy.
Comment: Maybe the question needs to do away with the - contentious - claim about Kennedy's intentions.  There was a shift of sentiment at some point which makes it a valid question.  But a better example is needed to illustrate that.  Or actual references backing up the claims concerning Kennedy's position.  Certainly, just to take one aspect, US military aid and collaboration has not always been at today's level, far from it.  Possibly past records of votes (and vetos) at the UN Security Council would also serve as substantiation.
Comment: The premise of this question is false. There was never any "dramatic" shift in US support for Israel. The US did object to Israel's nuclear program but the US also objects to any nuclear proliferation anywhere in the world.
Comment: Related: https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/82429/130
Answer: The United States was among the first countries in the world to support the formation of the state of Israel and has generally been sympathetic to the plight of Jews during and after World War II.
The support for Israel in the United States on average has been growing since then. It is widely perceived to be a steadfast ally of the United States, a stable Western democracy with a long tradition of a stable, free market economy, thus a rare exception among the neighboring states in the Middle East.
It is therefore not surprising that, with a few exceptions, such as the one you mentioned, the United States supported Israel, especially after the 1967 war.
References:

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.

Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
Support of Israel:

Israel–United States relations - Wikipedia
Direct U.S. Israeli financial aid
Americans Maintain Broad Support for Israel
Gallup Polls on American Sympathy Toward Israel and the Arabs/Palestinians

Forty-nine years ago this month, Israel's survival was in serious doubt. A coalition of Arab nations, led by Egypt and Syria, had surprised the Israeli military with a coordinated, all-out assault on the Jewish nation as it observed the holiest day of its year, Yom Kippur. Armed with the latest in Soviet weaponry, Arab forces quickly destroyed Israeli warplanes and tanks in numbers so shockingly large that a complete conquest of Israel — previously unthinkable — suddenly seemed all too possible.
In desperate need of rearmament, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir sent multiple appeals to the United States for military aid. Some of President Richard Nixon's military advisors counseled against such a move, as they feared it would rapidly spiral into open warfare between America and the Soviet Union.
Nixon, after huddling with National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, ordered a decisive response that few if any expected: a full-on emergency mobilization of the American military to immediately bring the Israeli military back to its pre-invasion strength.
Launched just six days after the first Egyptian and Syrian attacks, "Operation Nickel Grass" constituted a resupply campaign that surpassed anything ever seen before — or since — in American history. U.S. military transports filled to the brim with weapons and supplies immediately took off for Israeli airbases, shadowed by American fighters with orders to shoot down any plane that appeared even remotely hostile.

When the US actually did move 'heaven and earth' | The Hill
I am grateful to Fizz for bringing this article to my attention in the comments.
Comment: The big change in US military aid was during the Yom Kippur war. Cumulatively, since then, that's [some $158 billion](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf), more than what was given to Ukraine, albeit aid to the latter came on a much shorter time frame.
Comment: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3679463-when-the-us-actually-did-move-heaven-and-earth/ is worth a read.
Comment: If you'd pay more attention to the title of the question - *shift* - and to your own graph, you'd see the aid $ went way up 65-75s:  what caused it?  Additionally, this answer doesn't account for Israel being told off by the US in 1956 - at that point, the US was a friend, but not an unconditional one.  Agree with Roger, this is more the public relations version of things than it is the realpolitik one.
Comment: @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: The 1973 spike on the graph is probably the Yom Kippur War.
Answer: The shift happened sometime after 1956 - when the US told the UK, France and Israel to call off their operations.

When Israel refused to withdraw its troops from the Gaza Strip and Sharm el-Sheikh, Eisenhower declared, "We must not allow Europe to go flat on its back for the want of oil." He sought UN-backed efforts to impose economic sanctions on Israel until it fully withdrew from Egyptian territory. Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and minority leader William Knowland objected to American pressure on Israel.

The Yom-Kippur 1973 War initially started out badly for Israel and it is often thought that the US was presented with the following dilemma:  help Israel win ASAP.  Or, at least potentially, face it having to go nuclear.  In any case, what is certain is that US dramatically, and very quickly, ramped up their weapon deliveries, during and immediately after that war.
Keep in mind as well that, as time progressed from 1948, the Arab nations inimical to Israel started being more and more backed by the Soviets:  1973 was fought fully against Russian gear, for example.  So that support also needs to be considered in the wider US USSR containment strategy, something that would have much less of a consideration in say 1948 (no, my knowledge doesn't extend to parsing out 1948/1956/1967/1973 levels of "Sovietization" in the neighbors).
There is, yes, a generational component to this as well.  Many older people remember Israel as the doughty underdog facing off against overwhelming odds.  But that period ended sometime after the 80s  and many younger people have no concept of Israel having been in existential danger and only see its refusal to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians.  (this is, in a way, even more pronounced in Europe, where Israel was held in good sympathy in the 70s and 80s.)
Another possible consideration is that, while I am hesitant to speculate overmuch about the theological reasons behind US Evangelical support for Israel, the influence of Evangelicals on US politics and policy also seemed considerably lower in decades past than it is nowadays (yes, even there is a generational thing going on as well).
Last, while the OPEC oil embargo in 1974 was a great success, it probably did not endear the Arab countries to the US public.  And neither did the spate of terrorist incidents in the early 1970s.
Comment: Not to deny the US aid during Yom Kippour, but my understanding is that the US was already the principal Israel's ally during the Six Day War in 1967, although the mutual suspicion or lack of established communication channels for military are sometimes cited among the causes of the USS Liberty incident. In 1973 saving Israel was already seen as strategically important, despite Nixon's personal misgivings about Jews.
Comment: @RogerV. Correct, which is why I think [Fizz's is the better answer, going back to 70](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/83146/21531).  I wasn't aware of those details and just looked at 48... 56.. .67... **73** and answered on that basis.
Answer: Opinions might be a bit divided on a precise moment when the shift happened, but some (e.g. Michael Doran) place it in the 1970 exchange of letters/promises between Nixon and Meir, which put an end to Attrition War. Essentially Israel promised not to ever strike first again (like in '67) and in return the US promised they'll massively help Israel if necessary.

Before August 1970, there were still many in the American national-security system who sought to impose territorial concessions on the Jewish state. Never far from Golda Meir's mind was the second commitment that Nixon made to Meir concerned arms. "I want again to assure you," he wrote, "of my support for Israel's existence and security and my intention to continue to provide Israel with the necessary assistance to assure that the balance of power will not be altered to the detriment of Israel." Five decades later, we can see that those promises included, as Middle East analyst David Wurmser has argued, what is now a cornerstone of American foreign policy, namely, maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge or QME. Recognizing that Israel, which relies on the mobilization of civilian reserves for its defense, must compensate for the greater size and larger population of its adversaries through superior weaponry, Congress has since enacted legislation requiring the United States to maintain Israel's QME. The first documented use of the term dates from 1981, when Secretary of State Al Haig, answering a Congressional query in writing, identified the maintenance of Israel's QME as a legacy of the Nixon administration. So important were these commitments to the Israelis that, when Nixon first made them, Rabin writes in his memoirs, some considered them "a latter-day Balfour Declaration."
Three years later, in the first days of the Yom Kippur War, when Golda Meir descended into her darkest hour, these commitments guided her forward. When the problem of resupply weighed on her mind, she called her ambassador to the U.S. at three in the morning and told him to wake up Kissinger and Nixon to get things flowing. In her memoirs she explained her behavior. "I knew that President Nixon had promised to help us, and I knew from my past experience with him that he would not let us down," she writes. "Let me, at this point, repeat something that I have said often before (usually to the extreme annoyance of many of my American friends)," she continues. "However history judges Richard Nixon—and it is probable that the verdict will be very harsh—it must also be put on the record forever that he did not break a single one of the promises he made to us."

And basically it worked out out like that in '73:

Meir further testified that, in the hours before the war started, she explained to the ministers in her government that, "1973 is not 1967, and we won't be forgiven this time." Yes, some Israeli soldiers would certainly die due to the failure to launch a preemptive strike, but, Meir said, "I don't know how many more others would die due to lack of equipment."
By the time the prime minister got around to ordering a major mobilization, the Egyptian and Syrian attack was, in her understanding, just ten hours away (in fact it was only six). Even at that late hour, Dayan opposed her decision because he feared that Israel's critics in Washington would blame Israel for starting the war by depicting the mobilization as the beginning of a surprise offensive.

Also

The restraint that Nixon demanded from Israel bore a superficial connection to the traditional attitudes of the State Department, which also sought to shackle Israel. However, these two calls for restraint emanated from very different strategic assessments. The traditional policy arose from the calculation that Israel was a liability to the United States. Close relations between Washington and Jerusalem, so the argument went, alienated the Arabs, driving them into the arms of the Soviet Union. To keep the Arabs in the Western camp, the United States must distance itself from Israel and, more specifically, demonstrate to them it was not building up Israel militarily. [...]
In a sharp break with traditional American thinking on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Nixon and Kissinger concluded that Israel's military power was an asset to the United States. Watching Israel stand up not just to Egypt but also to the Soviet Union, they calculated that the Jewish state could help to shift the balance of power in the Middle East. It could even serve as a fulcrum for flipping Cairo from the Soviet to the American camp. To regain its lost territory and reopen the Suez Canal, Nixon and Kissinger reasoned, Egypt must be compelled to negotiate directly with Israel. The Soviets could help Cairo make war, but only the United States could help it make peace. Washington could deliver the Israelis and broker a lasting settlement—but only if Sadat, who by this time had replaced Nasser, would first agree to abandon Moscow. In the meantime, the United States would build up Israel militarily.
[...] "The president," Kissinger said, "is very good on big strategic issues. He has no particular love for Jews. He does not give a damn for Israel in the abstract. It interests him only within the strategic context of the Middle East. He told me so. He has a good conception of the strategic significance of the Middle East."
The War of Attrition had taught Nixon that an escalation of the Egyptian-Israeli conflict might prompt Brezhnev to increase the size of the Soviet contingent in Egypt. The U.S. would then have to choose between countering Soviet moves or backing down and handing Moscow a victory. Nixon sought to ensure that if this sort of confrontation emerged, he would be well positioned to manage it. An Egyptian-Israeli war would inevitably lead some influential voices in the State Department and the Pentagon to accuse Israel of dragging the United States into a war with the Soviet Union. Nixon and Kissinger demanded that the Israelis preempt such accusations by exercising restraint to ensure that Egypt would be blamed for any breach of the 1970 ceasefire.

So, essentially, the moment Israel became the clear victim in the eyes of the US ('73), it won the PR battle, according to that account. And that approach also (eventually) delivered something precious to the US strategists focused on global power: "flipping" Egypt from the Soviet camp, or at least pushing it to a much less clear alignment in that regard.
Answer: In 1967 Israel won the Six Day War and thus proved that it was going to survive for some time. It then made more sense for the US to have it as an ally in the ME, to further the US influence, rather than letting somebody else do so (previously Israel was getting help from the UK and France, but the USSR was also interested - particularly given that the Zionist movement was heavily socialist (see Labor Zionism.)
Update
Rashid Khalidi in The Iron Cage points out that re-orientation of the Zionist policy towards the US had began already in late 1930s:

More to the point, the White Paper, dead letter though it was in
large measure because of the outbreak of World War II, convinced
farsighted Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion, who would be-
come the first prime minister of Israel, that the Zionist movement
was obliged to acquire a new great-power sponsor. With the Zionist
movement's Biltmore Program (pointedly enunciated in New York
in 1942) calling for a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine, Ben-
Gurion began the process of setting more explicit and more ambitious goals and reorienting the movement toward the United States,
which he correctly identified as the great power of the future. Al-
though the landing of American troops in Iran and North Africa
only took place the following year, it was already clear to him that
Britain was a declining power and the United States a rising one, in
the Middle East and in the world as a whole. Very few Middle Eastern, or for that matter world, leaders were as perspicacious in this
regard as was Ben-Gurion.

He also comments on the importance of Israel to both the US and the USSR, and their reluctance to support the Palestinians:

By contrast with British policymakers, who had come to resent
the Zionists bitterly for turning against them (a sentiment that was
more than reciprocated), American and Soviet planners saw the
nascent Jewish state as a possible asset in their eƒorts to diminish
the overwhelming influence of Great Britain in the Middle East.
Both appreciated the vital strategic importance of the region, both
were in search of local allies and clients, and both saw Britain as an
obstacle to the enhancement of their own influence. Although we
naturally tend to see the United States and the Soviet Union as the
primary powers in the Middle East (as elsewhere) in the wake of
World War II, in fact this only became true in the mid- to late 1950s.
Their ascendancy, and the eclipse of both of the formerly dominant
great powers in the region, Britain and France, was only fully
brought home during the Suez crisis of 1956, when the latter, acting
in collusion with Israel, were humiliated by the United States and in collusion with Israel, were humiliated by the United States and
the Soviet Union, which turned back their tripartite invasion of
Egypt.
In the meantime, what this meant for the Palestinians was that
no great power was on their side. The United States and Soviet
Union were overtly ranged against them, both voting for partition
and for the establishment of a Jewish state in 1947, and immediately
recognizing Israel on May 15, 1948. The reasons were simple: both
looked with disfavor on the Palestinians because of the mufti's years
in Berlin, and neither had developed any links with them. The
Palestinians, meanwhile, had even less of a presence in, or under-
standing of, the Soviet Union or the United States than they had had with regard to Britain. By contrast, the Zionist movement
had made major inroads in the United States, developing a strong
position within the American Jewish community, which became
broadly supportive in the wake of the Holocaust, and building on
relations with Congress and with American presidents that went
back to the close links between American Zionist leader Louis Bran-
deis and President Wilson. Even with the Soviet Union, which was
generally unfriendly to Zionism, during and after World War II the
Zionist movement had managed to build a relationship that served
them in good stead in 1948 when a major Czech arms deal helped
the young Israeli state.
Comment: That doesn't really explain the difference in the publics response. There's quite a gap between bombing and giving unconditional support to.
Comment: @FourierFlux you misrepresent Kennedy attitudes - he was actually already supportive of Israel, contrary to the previous administrations. I suggest that you add a reference regarding the bombing bit -   as of now it lacks the context.
Answer:
Question:
From what I remember reading during the Kennedy(I hope I got that right) administration the US was considering bombing or taking over Israelis suspected nuclear development sites.
Now many people in the US give Israel unconditional support in both parties.
What caused this dramatic shift?

It's really 3 different questions.

Was there a dramatic shift in U.S. support for Israel

Yes

When was that?

1971

Why was that?

Nixon had Cold War considerations as he sought to end the Vietnam war and establish detente with the Soviet Union. So Nixon got involved with ME peace to "deconflict" US Soviet Relations.

1. Was their really a dramatic shift in US support for Israel?

Yes.  During WWII through 1968 U.S. and Israel were not strong allies.  US  opinions on Israel were over shadowed by various controversial actions taken by the Israeli's against America and our Allies.

1944, The Israeli Lehi Group (stern Gang) assassinated the British Minister of State in the Middle East, Lord Moyne.
1946, When the Irgun lead by future Israel Prime Minster Menachem Begin, bombed the King David Hotel, a British military headquarters in Jerusalem, Killing 91, injuring another 46.
1948, The assassination of the the United Nations Security Council special envoy to the Arab–Israeli conflict Count Folke Bernadotte
1954, The fire bombing of the American Embassy in Cairo, Egypt; along with British-owned civilian targets: cinemas, libraries, and American educational centers.  A false flag operation to influence President Eisenhower to hold Egypt responsible.  Named the Lavon Affair after Pinhas Lavon the Israeli defense minister forced to resign when Israel's central role in the bombings came to light.
1967, The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty in international waters.   Killing 34 U.S. service men, wounding 171.

2. When did U.S. support Shift?

1971,  U.S. Military aid to Israel jumped 1820% from $30 million in 1970 to $546 million.
*(all time U.S. military aid high to Israel at that point $85 million in 1969)...

3.  Why did U.S. support Shift?

Short Answer:
Prior to the Nixon Administration beginning in 1969 the U.S. was only peripherally involved in the Middle East troubles not actively supporting either side, rather trying to tamp down violence.  President Johnson had first delivered American Phantom fighter jets to Israel in 1968 giving the United States more cachet with Israel's.  Likewise Israel's primary existential threats, Egypt and Syria had become more closely aligned with the Soviets.  The Nixon administration, in 1969 believed the the Arab Israeli conflict would harm U.S. interests impacting U.S relations with Arab nations and complicate US Soviet mediation efforts.  So Nixon decided he would take an active role in trying to negotiate a middle east peace deal (69, 70).  When those negotiations failed, Nixon settled for a peace based on a balance of power and began increasing / maintaining US Military aid to Israel at +1000% of 1970 levels until leaving office in 1976. Carter Administration then upped that aid resulting in the Camp David Accords in 1978.  In Camp David Accords Peace Agreement both Egypt and Israel would receive billions annually in U.S. aid from that moment on.  For Israel that would mean a sustained 500% military aid Increase from 1977 to 1978, which has grown to nearly $4 Billion in US aid for the last decade.
Longer Answer:

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations
The 1973 Arab-Israeli War
President Richard Nixon came into office convinced that the Arab-Israeli standoff over the fate of the occupied territories could damage America's standing in the Arab world and undermine prospects for U.S.-Soviet détente. In attempt to break the deadlock, he ordered Secretary of State William Rogers to negotiate with the Soviets on the parameters of a Middle East settlement, with the goal of reaching an agreement that each superpower could sell to its regional clients. By December 1969, however, the Soviet Union, Egypt, and Israel had all rejected the so-called "Rogers Plan," which called for Israeli to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, with "insubstantial alterations," in return for peace.
The failure of the Rogers Plan led Nixon to suspend efforts to reach a settlement with the Soviets and lent credence to National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger's argument that the United States should not push Israel for concessions so long as Egypt, the leading Arab state, remained aligned with the Soviets. In the summer of 1970, Nixon broke with Kissinger and allowed Rogers to present a more limited initiative to halt the Israeli-Egyptian "War of Attrition" along the Suez Canal, in which the Soviets had become militarily involved. "Rogers II," which called for Israel and Egypt to agree to a three month ceasefire and negotiations under the auspices of U.N. mediator Gunnar Jarring, was accepted by both parties, who stopped fighting on August 7. Yet Nixon's appetite for diplomacy was spoiled by Egyptian and Soviet efforts to move anti-aircraft missiles closer to the Canal and Syrian intervention in Jordan's civil war. Until February 1971, Kissinger's arguments against prematurely rewarding Soviet clients again held sway.
In February 1971, however, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat presented the Nixon administration with a new opportunity for Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Sadat proposed that Egypt would reopen the Suez Canal if the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pulled back from the Canal's east bank and later agreed to a timetable for further withdrawals. He also indicated that he would renounce all claims of belligerency against Israel if the IDF withdrew to the international border. Rogers' efforts to capitalize on Sadat's statements by working toward an interim settlement, however, were opposed by the Israelis, and received little support from Kissinger and Nixon. Kissinger believed that Egyptian proposals for an interim settlement, along with a Soviet peace plan tabled that September, would be rejected by the Israelis, and did not want discord over the Middle East to undermine efforts at détente before the Moscow summit of May 1972. For Nixon, such reasoning was reinforced by a desire to avoid a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations before the 1972 presidential elections.
In the wake of the Moscow summit, where the Americans and the Soviets deliberately avoided discussing the Middle East, Sadat made two more moves to get the Nixon administration to break the Arab-Israeli stalemate. In July 1972, he decided to expel Soviet military advisors from Egypt, and opened a backchannel to Kissinger through Hafiz Isma'il, his national security advisor. In February 1973, Isma'il met with Kissinger and informed him that Egypt would be willing to sign a separate peace agreement with Israel that could involve demilitarized zones on both sides of the international border and peacekeepers in sensitive locations like Sharm al-Shaykh. However, Egyptian-Israeli normalization would have to wait until Israel withdrew from all the territories it had conquered in 1967. The Israelis responded haltingly, and Nixon and Kissinger made little effort to change their minds. Despite Sadat's public displays of frustration, as well as warnings from Jordan's King Hussein and Soviet Secretary-General Leonid Brezhnev, Nixon and Kissinger believed that given the military balance, Egypt and Syria would not attack Israel, a view supported by much of the U.S. intelligence community. Until the fall of 1973, the President and Kissinger held that any American diplomatic initiative would have to wait until after Israel's elections that October.

From Comments:

From Italian Philosophers 4 Monica:
I am not asking a question. I am pointing out that Liberty isn't like Bernadotte. We know Bernadotte was intentional. We ... don't know about Liberty. As written, in a long list of very questionable behavior that is well known about and was intentional, it looks as if Liberty was also intentional. Might have been/might not. Mentioning that it may/may not have been a mistake doesn't cost anything. Right now, a naive user, reading your answer, would think: "oh, wow, they attacked and killed all those sailors and no one minded???" –

How do you pull Three attack boats less than a hundred yards range to machine gun the life rafts and US sailors of A ship sporting two American Flags: 5x8 feet, the other 8x13 feet for two hours, in fair weather with excellent visibility and claim you misidentified the ship?   A ship clearly marked as a US Navy ship on it's hull?  Breaking off the attack only after 8 fighters from the USS America were dispatch to engage the Israelis?  In order to lend credence to the ship being mis-identified you would need to believe the Israeli IDF Pilots and Seamen were blind, and the radio operators were deaf,  except when the USS America dispatch it's response.   They heard that!
Let's hear what the contemporary experts believed.

Quotes by Contemporary Experts on the USS Liberty
Dean Rusk, then-Secretary of State:
"...an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life." —10 June 1967 diplomatic note to the Israeli Ambassador.
"But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or soem trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous." —Rusk, As I Saw It, W.W.Norton, 1990. p 388

Clark M. Clifford, then-Presidential Advisor and Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board:
"I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong--and then had been covered up. I hever felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions..." —Counsel to the President
"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable. El Quseir has one-fourth the displacement of the Liberty, roughly half the beam, is 180 feet shorter, and is very differently configured. The Liberty's unusual antenna array and hull markings should have been visible to low-flying aircraft and torpedo boats. In the heat of battle the Liberty was able to identify one of the attacking torpedo boats as Israeli and to ascertain its hull number. In the same circumstances, trained Israeli naval personnel should have been able easily to see and identify the larger hull markings on the Liberty." —memorandum to the President, 18 July 1967

Paul C. Warnke, then-General Legal Counsel of the Department of Defense:
"I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it."

George Ball, under secretary of state at the time:
"American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens. . . . The Liberty's presence and function were well known to Israel's leaders. ...Israel's leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything." —writing in The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.

Dwight Porter, former US Ambassador to Lebanon:
"'It's an American ship!' the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter-bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to attack the American ship." —former US Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter describing transcripts of communications he saw, reported in syndicated column "Remembering the Liberty" by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.

David G. Nes, the deputy head of the American mission in Cairo at the time:
"I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."

George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson:
"No one in the White House believed that the attack was an accident." —in letter to James Ennes, 1978.

John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I:
"The Israelis told us 24 hours before that ...if we didn't move it, they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved, and by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water." —in an address to the AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Raymond Tate, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Deputy Director, NSA:
". . . the commander of the Sixth Fleet was informed by the Washington Intelligence Apparatus that it had evidence that the Liberty was going to be attacked and to provide protection for it. That message was never really acted upon, and the ship was dead in the water when it was hit. So the end result was no accident." —Raymond Tate, Deputy Assistant SecNav and Deputy Director, NSA, Worldwide C3I and Telecommunications (1980, pp. 25-47)

Members of Congress

Craig Hosmer, then-U.S. Representative:
"I can only conclude that the coordinated attack by aircraft and motor torpedo boats on the U.S.S. Liberty 15 1/2 miles north of Sinai on June 8 which killed 34 officers and men of the Navy and wounded another 175 was deliberate.
"The fact that the U.S.S. Liberty was a Victory hull vessel, hundreds of which were produced and used by the U.S. Navy during World War II and since, rules out the possibility of mistaken identity. Every ship recognition book in the world has, for years, identified the characteristic Victory hull and supersturcture of the U.S.S. Liberty as U.S. Navy property...
"Whatever the reason for the attack, it was an act of high piracy. Those responsible should be court-martialed on charges of murder, amongst other counts. The Israel Government should pay full reparations to the United States and indemnities to the families of the Americans killed." —Craig Hosmer, then-U.S. Representative, on the floor of the House of Representatives, 29 June 1967

Thomas G. Abernathy, then-U.S. Representative:
"The Liberty ship incident - and indeed it was more than an incident - has been treated entirely too lightly by this Government. To say the lease, too little has been said about it. This useless, unnecessary and inexcusable attack took the lives of 34 American boys, wounded 175 others, and left many others in a state of horrified shock, to say nothing of what it did to a flag-flying vessel of the U.S. Navy. How could this be treated so lightly in this the greatest Capitol in all the world?
"I have heard Members of this House, and many, many others, say that if this had been done by others, the leaders of our Government would have moved in with sternness and appropriate action demands or even retaliatory action.
"These men at all times are entitled to the strong backing of every citizen of this land or every race and every creed. They are entitled to and should have the strong arm, as well as the strong voice of their Government and their people behind them. And who has spoken out in their behalf from this land since some of their number were so suddenly shot down and others so severely wounded on the Liberty ship?
"What complaint have we registered? What has Washington said? To tell you the truth, this great Capitol as well as this great Government - if it can still be called great - was and is as quiet as a tomb regarding this event?" —Thomas G. Abernathy, then-U.S. Representative, on the floor of the House of Representatives, 29 June 1967

Adlai Stevenson III, former United States Senator:
"Those sailors who were wounded, who were eyewitnesses, have not been heard from by the American public. . . [Their story] leaves no doubt but what this was a premeditated, carefully reconnoitered attack by Israeli aircraft against our ship." —US Senator Adlai Stevenson III in interview with Wm. J. Small, UPI, for publication September 28, 1980

James Abourezk, former United States Senator
"The shame of the U.S.S. Liberty incident is that our sailors were treated as though they were enemies, rather than the patriots and heroes that they were. There is no other incident--beyond Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty--that shows the power of the Israeli Lobby by being able to silence successive American governments. Allowing the lies told by the Israelis and their minions in the U.S. is disheartening to all of us who are proud of our servicemen." —James Abourezk, United States Senate, 1973-79
Paul Findley, former U.S. Congressman:
"Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship's identity. ...The President of the United States led a cover-up so thorough that years after he left office, the episode was still largely unknown to the public -- and the men who suffered and died have gone largely unhonored." —Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out, Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985, p166
Military Officials

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, US Navy (Ret.):
"The ship was clearly identified, not only by its unique configuration but by a very large U.S. flag that was flown at the time. The weather was calm and the visibility was excellent. During this unprovoked attack 34 U.S. Navy men were killed and 171 wounded. Nevertheless, to this day the American public does not know why the attack took place and who was involved overall. "In my opinion, the United States government and the Israeli government must share responsibility for this cover-up. I cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity. I have flown for years in both peace and war on surveillance flights over the ocean, and my opinion is supported by a full career of locating and identifying ships at sea. Based on the way this tragedy was handled both in the United States and in Israel, one must conclude that there is much information that has not been made available to the public. "The U.S. Fleet, positioned nearby, received a distress call from the USS Liberty, and one carrier dispatched a squadron to go to the defense of the disabled ship. Before the aircraft reached the Liberty, they received orders from Washington directing their return to their ship. Who issued those orders? So far, no one knows. In the United States all information available to the U.S. government indicating those who participated in controlling this operation from Washington, together with the exact text of orders transmitted to the Mediterranean Fleet, has never been made public." —Thomas H. Moorer, Admiral, US Navy (Ret.), Forword to Assault on the Liberty

Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (Ret.):
"Retired Navy legal counsel Capt. Ward Boston says he and the court's president, the late Rear Adm. Isaac "Ike" Kidd, always believed Israeli forces knowingly attacked the Liberty. 'I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship,' said Boston, who lives in Coronado, Calif. 'That's the bottom line. I don't care how they tried to get out of it.'" —Text and quotes from the Navy Times, 26 June 2002
"Gentlemen: The JAG Manual provides that the responsibility of Counsel for the Court is to exploit all practicable sources of information and to bring out all facts in an impartial manner without regard to the favorable or unfavorable effect on persons concerned.
"I believe that the record of proceedings of this Court of Inquiry will reflect that all facts and information which are available concerning the unprovoked attack on USS Liberty on 8 June 1967, have been brought to your attention.
"The only remaining responsibility which I have, while this Court is in session is to give summation of the evidence introduced observing the caveat that the summation must be an impartial argument and not amount to partisan advocacy.
"Even though I intend to temper my remarks within the peripheral limits of such a guide line, I must confess however, that after living intimately with the facts of this case for the past week, I have become more and more appalled that such a tragedy should have over occurred. Therefore, I shall attempt to synopsize those salient facts which have influenced my judgment in this summation.
"You have heard testimony and viewed incontrovertible documentary evidence which established the following factual setting:
"USS Liberty, pictured, defined and described in Janes Fighting Ships as an unarmed U.S. Navy technical research ship, deployed to the Mediterranean pursuant to official orders and, on 8 June 1967, was on station in accordance with such orders. However, the Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, had not been appraised that Liberty's orders had been modified, apparently because of the Middle East War so, instead of the previously assigned area of operation being in international waters contiguous to the coast of the United Arab Republic, the modification provided for removal to an area of operation 100 miles from the coast. The evidence clearly reflects that any dereliction for USS Liberty not having knowledge of the modification in orders is not attributable to Liberty. Nor is there any evidence of probative value establishing culpability in non-receipt." —Ward Boston, Captain, JAGC, US Navy (Ret.), in the Counsel for the Court's Summary of Evidence of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the attack on USS Liberty

Commander Ernest Castle, U.S. Naval Attaché at American Embassy in Tel-Aviv:
". . . Info on MTB attack received by embassy officer from IDF naval officer who said he was aboard MTB. . . . They eagerly raced into action without waiting to identify our ship." —Commander Ernest Castle, U.S. Naval Attaché at American Embassay in Tel-Aviv in 15 June 1967 message to Rear Admiral Kidd

Commander William McGonagle, Captain, USS Liberty:
After more than two hours of unremitting assault, the Israelis finally halted their attack. One of the torpedo boats approached the Liberty. This same torpedo boat crew had been circling the ship, machine-gunning anyone who stuck his head above decks, as well as the lifeboats the crew had put over the side.
What had changed? The Israeli government knew that US aircraft carriers had just launched aircraft to come to Liberty's aid and the attack was quickly called off. The Israeli government called the US Embassy and said that they had made a "mistake."
A torpedo boat officer asked in English over a bullhorn: "Do you need any help?"
The wounded commander of the Liberty, Captain William McGonagle, instructed the quartermaster to respond emphatically: "Fuck you."
Intelligence Community Officials

Richard Helms, then-Director of Central Intelligence (CIA Director):
"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the U.S. . . .
I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack." —Richard Helms, then-Director of Central Intelligence (CIA Director), A Look Over My Shoulder

Adm. Rufus Taylor, then-Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (CIA Deputy Director)
"To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that the Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway, either through confusion in Command and Control or through deliberate disregard of instructions on the part of subordinates."

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency:
On the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots' conversations during the attack, the question of the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency.
Lieuten**ant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency, interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003

Major General John Morrison, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations:
"....did not buy the Israeli 'mistake' explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation." When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. "That would be enough," he said. "They wouldn't want us in on that. You've got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do." —reported in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233.

Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN, Director National Security Agency 1977-1981:
Inman said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol thesis that the attack was an accident. "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly identified" based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA official could be found who dissented from the "deliberate" conclusion. —reported in Proceedings, June, 2003

Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency:
"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that they knew they were attacking an American ship."

Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency. Kirby participated in NSA's investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is considered the "Godfather" of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)

Louis W. Tordella, former NSA Deputy Director
"A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]." —Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of all blame for the Liberty attack.
Intelligence Community Officials

Yitzhak Rabin, IDF Chief of Staff in 1967 and former Prime Minister of Israel:
"A ship had been sighted opposite El Arish. Following standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore (after appropriate attempts had been made to ascertain its identity), our air force and navy zeroed in on the vessel and damaged it. But they still could not tell whose ship it was.... Four of our planes flew over it at a low altitude in an attempt to identify the ship, but they were unable to make out any markings and therefore concluded it must be Egyptian...."

Abba Eban, Israeli UN Ambassador in 1967:
"American leaders--including Secretary of State Rusk--found it difficult to assume that the attack had been inadvertent. They occupied their minds with various scenarios of motivation. All of them were false. Israel had no interest whatever in preventing the United States from knowing what was going on. There was nothing apologetic about our military decisions ....I categorically assert that the LIBERTY tragedy was not deliberate. I attended all the intimate consultations of the defense and diplomatic leaders in those forty-eight hours, and it is certain that airmen and soldiers would not have reported falsely to the prime minister, the newly appointed defense minister and to the chief of staff on a matter as grave as the sinking [sic] of an American vessel by Israeli forces. "
Comment: **Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency:**

On the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots' conversations during the attack, the question of the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency.

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency, interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003
Comment: Re *"giving the United States more cache with Israel's"*: Do you mean *"giving the United States more [cachet](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cachet#Noun) with Israel's"*?
Comment: @PeterMortensen Yes Thank you for the correction.
Comment: Pretty good.  One correction I would make is the rather unclear nature of the Liberty incident - was it a mistake?  intentional?  As written *"1967, The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty in international waters."* it is not made clear that the nature of the incident in question is hopelessly uncertain - with allegations of coverup by US survivors but also Israeli contrition.  What is certain is that we don't know whether or not Israel wanted to shoot up a US ship.  That's unclear in this list - the other controversial Israeli actions *were* intentional.
Comment: This might serve as a primer, though I don't remember if it is a neutral enough one or not.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_f73lWf_8
Comment: @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica that's an entirely differnt question.  If you ask it I'll answer it.  There is quite an elaborate USS Liberty exhibit at the NSA museum in Fort Meade MD.
Comment: I am not asking a question.  I am pointing out that Liberty isn't like Bernadotte.  We know Bernadotte was intentional.  We ... don't know about Liberty.  As written, in a long list of very questionable behavior that is well known about and was intentional, it looks as if Liberty was also intentional.  Might have been/might not.  Mentioning that it may/may not have been a mistake doesn't cost anything.  Right now, a naive user, *reading your answer*, would think:  "oh, wow, they attacked and killed all those sailors and no one minded???"
Comment: @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Doesn't matter if it was intentional or not the event was front page news across the US when it occurred, that alone would color US public opinion.
Comment: alright.  I was gonna upvote, but DV instead.
Comment: **Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, US Navy (Ret.):**
"The ship was clearly identified, not only by its unique configuration but by a very large U.S. flag that was flown at the time. The weather was calm and the visibility was excellent. During this unprovoked attack 34 U.S. Navy men were killed and 171 wounded. Nevertheless, to this day the American public does not know why the attack took place and who was involved overall.
Comment: **Richard Helms, then CIA Director:**
"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice.

I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack."
Comment: Did the population end up supporting Israel after it was decided it was useful for US interests within Washington or before? In debates I rarely hear Israels real utility evaluated as discussion almost always revolves around some other issue.
Comment: @FourierFlux Israel enjoys broad support from the US public which occurred at different times for different reasons. Segments of the Democrats came to support Israel broadly among Democrats after/during the 1948 war of Independence prior to Nixon.. I think strong Republican support post dates Nixon's détente ambitions and arose beginning in the 1980s with the political rise of social conservatives within the Republican party. Perhaps as late as the 1990s.


Update a table from another table with nested trigger in sql server

Question: I have a question regarding trigger in sql server. So I got this table :
In Status Table

InStatusID Time CarID
1         NULL   10

and another table which has all primary key from other tables (including the one I posted above) :
Car Table

CarID InStatusID OutStatusID ColorID
1         1   2                   9

When inserting data for car table, I need to fill them with ID from other tables. However, the GUI from the application didn't need the column for InStatusID to be inserted by the user.
My solution is to make a trigger on Car Table Insert to insert new values for In Status table with the CarID i got from inserted, then when inserting for In Status table there will be another trigger that will update the car table's InStatusID on the same CarID.
For now my trigger look like this :

Car Insert Trigger
CREATE TRIGGER [dbo].[TRG_Cars_InsertStatus] ON [dbo].[Cars.Cars]
AFTER INSERT
AS
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
SET NOCOUNT ON
SET XACT_ABORT ON

BEGIN
BEGIN TRY
DECLARE @ID int

SELECT @ID=i.CarID from inserted i

INSERT INTO [dbo].[Cars.InStatuses] ([Time],[Created],[LastModified],[CarID]) values (NULL,CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,@ID)
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Cars.OutStatuses] ([Time],[Created],[LastModified],[CarID]) values (NULL,CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,@ID)

END TRY

BEGIN CATCH
SELECT
ERROR_NUMBER() AS ErrorNumber
,ERROR_SEVERITY() AS ErrorSeverity
,ERROR_STATE() AS ErrorState
,ERROR_PROCEDURE() AS ErrorProcedure
,ERROR_LINE() AS ErrorLine
,ERROR_MESSAGE() AS ErrorMessage;

      IF @@TRANCOUNT > 0
    ROLLBACK TRANSACTION;

END CATCH;

END

In Status/Out Status Insert Trigger
CREATE TRIGGER [dbo].[TRG_OutStatus_InsertCarID] ON [dbo].[Cars.OutStatuses]
AFTER INSERT
AS
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
SET NOCOUNT ON
SET XACT_ABORT ON

BEGIN TRY
DECLARE @ID int

SELECT @ID=i.OutStatusID from inserted i

UPDATE [dbo].[Cars.Cars]
SET OutStatusID=@ID

FROM [dbo].[Cars.Cars] CAR
INNER JOIN [dbo].[Cars.OutStatuses] STA
ON CAR.CarID = STA.CarID
END

The code runs but there is a bug : Every time the car table updated, every row on the car table would be udpated too. I thought I have tackled that problem by using JOIN ON but no success. Could anyone help me?
Comment: `inserted` can contain 0, 1 or *multiple* rows. So e.g. `SELECT @ID=i.OutStatusID from inserted i` is going to pick a random ID from one of the rows (or be NULL) and all other rows will be ignored. Rather than reading into scalar variables, make `inserted` one of the tables that you `JOIN` to.
Answer: simply dont put FK InStatusID on table Car. just put FK CarID on InStatusID
you dont need put both of FK on another table because its 1-1 relationship


Are there any well-known quantitative approaches to evaluate a particular design whether it satisfies or violates the SOLID design principles?

Question: I designed an application framework by considering the SOLID design principles and supported by design patterns. However, I wonder if there are any automated tools or well-known approaches to evaluate whether the SOLID design principles are satisfied or violated in the proposed design?
Comment: In the future, please do not cross-post questions between Stack Exchange sites. This question belongs on Programmers, where it is on-topic. If you ask a question on the wrong site, flag it for moderator review and request a migration.
Comment: By definition that is impossible, since one of the principles of SOLID design is to have one purpose for each class.  How would you go about determining how many purposes a class has?  Perhaps you could make some sort of conclusions about the other principles, but definitely not all are possible.
Comment: possible duplicate of [How would you know if you've written readable and easily maintainable code?](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/141005/how-would-you-know-if-youve-written-readable-and-easily-maintainable-code) and of [What are useful metrics for source code?](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/27686/what-are-useful-metrics-for-source-code)
Answer: At least the S, O, and L in SOLID stand for semantic principles - one has to understand what the code does and what its purpose is to validate those things. I am pretty sure A.I. research has not gotten so far (at least, not yet) to make a computer really understand the meaning of programs. So don't expect anything automatic nowadays.
But you have also asked for "well-known approaches" - well, there is one very well-known approach, it is called "code review by an expert" and I am pretty sure you have heard of it ;-) So the best suggestion I can give you is to post some parts of your code at https://codereview.stackexchange.com/ and discuss it there.
Comment: +1, that they're semantic principles is the root of the problem here, well said.
Answer: Even if it were possible, I think the effort might be wasted. What you can do is measure the impact of adherence to the principles has on the maintainability of your code. Coupling, cohesion, and cyclomatic complexity can all be measured by static analysis tools.
Also, if you're using .NET, you might be able to leverage StyleCop to create rules for adherence to certain guidelines. Again that might be more effort than it's worth. Either way, it can't hurt to use it.


Probability that Warriors won't lose consecutive games in season?

Question: I'm trying to determine the probability that the prediction is true, that Warriors won't lose consecutive games during an 82 game season. Assuming that Warriors have an 80% chance of winning every game I was trying to get  an approximation using binomial probability (nCr*p^x(1-p)^n-x) but I don't know how to model consecutive lose trials and I'm not sure if this is the best approach. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!
Comment: I assume you are trying to answer the 2017 NBA Hackathon application questions. I wrote up a detailed answer to the applications questions (including this one) in [this blog post](https://dancsalo.github.io/2017/09/03/hackathon-2017/). In short, @kbiolsi's answer is correct, and you can also run a MC simulation to approximate the answer.
Comment: I think you mean "an 80% chance of winning each game" rather than "every game". You also have to assume that the outcome of each game is independent of the others.
Answer: A couple of different formulas (one recursive, one not) that will allow you to compute the "chance of getting a run of K or more successes in a row in N Bernoulli trials" can be found at the following link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
The probability that the Warriors will not lose two or more games in a row during an 82-game season given a probability of 0.8 of winning any given game and assuming games are independent of one another is 0.05882.
Here are the probabilities for different numbers of games played:
<code>no. games  probability
2          0.96000
3          0.92800
4          0.89600
5          0.86528
10         0.72666
20         0.51250
30         0.36145
40         0.25492
41         0.24617
50         0.17979
60         0.12680
70         0.08943
80         0.06307
82         0.05882
</code>


How can I demonstrate the importance of accessibility to a client?

Question: How could I convince a client that visually impaired customers might want to use his e-commerce website? I want to demonstrate the importance of accessibility and convince him that we should try to make it accessible so that people of all abilities can use the site. He thinks visually impaired users aren't in his audience, and if they were, they would ask for assistance from a sighted person.
Answer: Chris has raised a very valid point that you need to consider that your potential user base could contain blind users and by effectively alienating them you are also losing business.
However there is also the possibility of bad press since you might end up alienating the friends/relatives of those blind users and general loss in reputation.I am not sure which country your client is located in but if you do not make your site accessible you might be violating the disabilities act in your user bases' country. For example, Target had to settle a  6 million dollar lawsuit because for years it didn't make it site accessible
To quote the article

Since 2006, the National Federation of the Blind had pursued charges
  that Target had "failed and refused" to make its web site accessible
  to the blind and thus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act as
  well as two California civil rights statutes: the California Unruh
  Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.
But in a settlement reached on Aug. 27 between Target, No. 19 in the
  Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide, and the federation, Target will
  establish a $6 million settlement fund from which litigants in the
  California lawsuit can make claims. The National Federation of the
  Blind will also certify Target.com through a non-visual accessibility
  web certification program once planned improvements are completed in
  early 2009. Target and the federation also have agreed to a three-year
  relationship during which the National Federation of the Blind will
  perform accessibility testing of Target.com.

As I said, I dont know the country where your client is located but you do need to consider that the number of blind people is not steady number and unfortunately there are more and more people who lose their sight every year. As per this article

More than 1.5 million blind or visually impaired people have access to
  the Internet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And every year,
  75,000 more Americans become blind, according to the National
  Federation of the Blind.

So effectively you could not only be losing out on a significant chunk of the existing population but could also lose out a future subset of the population who have unfortunately lost their site.
Answer: You would need to actually show him someone using a site setup correctly and then failing to use his site. However, this might not be possible, or he could choose not to believe the evidence anyway. You need to explain the situation in terms he understands - money.
Show him the statistics for how many blind and visually impaired people there are in your country. Then explain that if people can't use his site to actually buy stuff unaided they will leave and go to a competitors site.
This will reduce his potential customer base and hence sales by that percentage. This will have an impact on his profitability.
The more people who can use this site, the greater his profits will be.
Comment: Mention that 1 in 12 men have red-green colour blindness.  That's a non-trivial 8% of your male users (of any age). https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/colour-vision-deficiency/
Answer: When I've done user testing with blind people I've found that resolving issues for them would make the site better for everyone.
Another point to make is that search engines a website in much the same way as a visually impaired person does. So an accessible site is a more SEO friendly site
WebAIM is always useful for information -
http://webaim.org/articles/visual/blind
As mentioned by someone else there's likely to be a legal requirement for your clients site to be accessible.
Answer: Install a screen reader (free one could fit). Turn the screen off. Navigate and show him what the experience would be. For a better effect, if you know someone who's blind, make him meet your client and let him explain how frustrating it is to try to buy stuff online and you can't because of poorly coded or designed website.
Also I like to bring statistics and show them how many customers they could lost for this. Accessibility is not always for blind people. Think about your grand-mother who uses a high contrast screen and increase the font size.
I once told a client I was color blind and I couldn't tell the difference between new hot info (represented with red text) and archived info (in blue). I lied...but it was efficient, because if you say : Some people might not see it..they don't care. If they have the read deal in front of them..it's another story.


What happened to the Daedric artifacts my follower was carrying?

Question: When I did the ritual to turn into a werewolf, my follower left me, but when I went back to Riften to get her back, she no longer has any of my deadric artifacts that she was holding for me. Is there somewhere she has put them or are they gone for good?
Answer: NPCs in Skyrim don't actively store things in containers, so if your follower isn't carrying the items you've given them, then they are gone. If you play on PC, you can give yourself the items back via console; if you're playing on a console you may try moving the save over to PC, fixing it there and moving it back to console.
Comment: Are there any specific followers that lose items? For example, I dismiss Lidia several times, and yet every time I go back to her she is wearinhg the armour and has the weapons that I gave her.
Comment: @BlackHawk not that I know of.


Dragdrop Trash Can

Question: Does the trash docklet has a dragdrop functionality?
Also the language of the Trash docklet stays in English and doesn't change to Dutch in my case.
Answer: Yes, but it is hard to find a use for it since there is no desktop from which to drag file items in elementary.  You can drag file items from Files but that is pointless as it has its own Trash icon and also results in no "Undo" action.  The same goes for dragging items out of e.g. Photos or Music - I am not sure what it does to the databases of those apps and there is no way of undoing the action except by opening Files, finding the items in the trash and restoring them manually.
The docklet is now intended mainly for seeing how much is in the bin, seeing what was recently trashed, opening the trash and emptying the trash.

Dragdrop Trash Can


Are front end and user interface equivalent terms?

Question: I had the impression that "front end" refers to the user interface in most cases, but occasionally people also refer to "the front end of a compiler". So what is the difference between these two terms?
Comment: There isn't any difference.  Think about it for a second.  Hint: *input-processing-output*
Comment: A compiler front-end is not a user interface, so in that case they are not equivalent. However when people say e.g. "front-end developer" there is quite a high chance that they are *not* talking about developing compiler front-ends. I think you need to clarify the context in which the term is being used.
Answer: Look here:  https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9765414/compiler-front-end-back-end
Front end only implies there is also a back end that kicks in after the front end in some sort of transaction. In a web dominated world it typically means UI vs logic with the logic being on a central site. But basically it is about a separation in implementation and order/sequence.
Comment: For instance, the front end of a compiler deals with parsing various programming languages and turning them into intermediate code (while the back end turns intermediate code into machine code). But its *user interface* consists largely of "type the source file name after the compiler name".
Answer: No they are not the same.  "Front end" is a superset of "User interface."
In a distributed service-oriented environment, a server run by one company may need to send transaction requests and receive responses from the server run by another company.  The second company exposes its functionality via services (RESTful, WCF, whatever), which comprise its front end.  In this scenario, there is a front end, but no user interface; there is only the service interface.
Answer: I would consider a front end a collection of possible user interfaces. I would also consider my front end any part of my program not on my server because that is my back end.


Can I heal my mount?

Question: In Skyrim, is there a way to heal my horse while I'm on it? What about a dragon?
I know that if you have the healing hands magic, you can heal a horse while you are not on it, but is there a way to heal them while you are on it (since you can't use magic or staves while on horses)?  I have noticed that even though you can use magic while on a dragon, you cannot use healing magic (including magic to heal yourself).  Is there a way to heal your dragon?
Comment: Unless the page I linked is wrong, it looks like you *can* use certain Restoration spells while riding a dragon.
Answer: From what I've seen, it looks like you're only able to heal your horse while you are standing next to it, rather than riding it.
As for healing your dragon, based on the Healing Hands wikia page, it looks like it will work for your dragon mount, since dragons are not listed as exceptions.

It will not heal undead, atronachs, or Dwemer animunculi.

However, you can't cast it while riding, as it's not listed on the list of spells/shouts you can cast/shout from dragonback here.
Comment: sounds like it's time to bring out the mod tools again
Answer: As stated in both the question and the other answer, you can't heal a horse while riding it because you can't use spells while riding a horse.
As far as riding dragons is concerned, it is possible to heal both it and yourself while riding one by casting Grand Healing. I've done this myself. I play Skyrim using the Legendary Edition patch 1.9 on PC with no mods installed. That includes not using the unofficial patch.
Comment: but does this work with PS4 version, no mods installed?
Comment: I couldn't say for certain. I believe there is very little difference in code nowadays between the likes of legendary edition on PC and the remastered version on PS4 (gameplay wise). With that in mind, it ought to work.
Comment: Where do I get the Grand Healing spell?  I've never seen it...
Comment: It's an expert spell. Colette Marence, the expert Restoration trainer at the College of Winterhold, can sell the tome to you when your Restoration skill is 65 or higher.
Comment: Thanks!  I'll definitely look for that when I get my Restoration that high!

Can I heal my mount?


Is posting a word game accepted?

Question: Can I post word games (as community wiki) on this site? It will improve vocabulary. I would like an answer from a moderator.
Comment: @Mari-LouA Noted, but not convinced that that is grounds for 'closing' this genuine discussion on meta. Explain that in an answer if you can, please.
Comment: There wont be any community Moderators [appointed to this site](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/moderator-pro-tempore/) for about two weeks. But you are going about this the correct way. Use meta to determine if there is a consensus in the community as to whether this is on or off topic.
Comment: Agreed. The moderators on SE sites don't really make the rules or resolve disputes. They act more like facilitators that clean things up and do administrative chores. The community is supposed to be defining the rules.
Comment: I'm voting to close this question because  the nearest equivalent to a word game on EL&U is the "single word request" which attracts massively divisive opinions.
Answer: Generally speaking, I would prefer that such word games are left out; the reason is that there are too much variations for the same word game.
Answer: A decade+ later, I think very few people on this site would agree with  the 'yes' in the (since deleted) accepted answer. Though the tag word-games has 21 questions, very few of the un-closed, un-locked ones are actual word games, probably because puzzles and stuff aren't really about the English language and its usage; posting one will most likely result in your question's closure.
This may not be useful if the goal (as is yours) is to improve people's vocabulary, but Puzzling.SE, which has tags for [wordplay], [word-game], and language, is one place where such word games may be posted. Apparently, EL&U chat is also a place for this, although you probably wouldn't be able to post more elaborate games.
Comment: @Mari-LouA, on many discussion sites on the Internet resurrecting old thread is perceived as bad manners, but I don't think that has ever been the case here, In fact, responding to and commenting on years-old posts is quite common on this site. As I understand the general purposes of the Stack Exchange, it is meant to be a repository of expertise and insight for an indefinite future. The visitors to it are thus entitled to assume that everything that appears anywhere on it is to be taken seriously regardless of when it was posted. If things change, it is helpful for that to be noted.
Comment: While agreeing with this answer, I would probably add that it should not inhibit anyone from posting questions that are inspired or prompted by something one has encountered in a game, as long as the question is formulated so that it leads to an insight about the language that goes beyond the game.
Comment: Perhaps not a good idea to bump a 10-year-old question on meta, especially seeing no one has recently asked a similar question.
Comment: Word games would also be accepted in our [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/95) (which doesn't have many rules about what you can post there anyway). I think the regulars would enjoy it.
Comment: @jsw29 The OP talked about word games, not questions about the language or vocabulary used in games, whether they be puzzles or sports. I'm positive questions on language used in the football World Cup and the Olympics have been asked before. Nothing wrong with that. In any case, the post was composed way back in 2010, it has attracted a mere 161 visitors since then, so safe to say it would have been better to leave the post dormant.
Comment: In the chat forum, there are too many games posted, imo. And you can't even see the answers to them. Just that the posters were able to do them in so many tries. [sigh]

Is posting a word game accepted?


Integrate $\int\sec ^2 x \tan x\, dx$

Question: I am trying to compute
$$
\int\sec^2 x \tan x\, dx.
$$
I substituted $u =\sec^2 x$ to get the integral as
$$
\frac{\sec^4x}{2}
$$
as my answer, but according to the textbook I am using, I'm wrong. Can anyone help me with the correct answer? According to my textbook, the correct option is between  (a) $2\sec^2 x$ (b) $\tan x$ (c) $1/2 \sec x$ or (d)  $\csc x \cot x$
Comment: "according to the textbook I'm wrong": you didn't try checking your answer yourself by differentiating your answer to see if you got back the original function? You should.
Comment: What is the derivative of $\tan x$?
Comment: Exactly, why don't you put $u = \tan x$ instead ?
Answer: When you do a substitution like that in an integral, you want to
end up with something that looks like this:
$$\int u \; du.$$
If $u = \sec^2 x$, what is $du$? If it is not $\tan x\;dx$ then
you will not be able to change $\sec^2 x \tan x \; dx$ to
$u \; du$.
Try a different substitution. There are not many choices,
in fact I see only three likely possibilities and $u = \sec^2 x$ is the
only one of the three that does not work.
EDIT: John Joy, in another answer, shows that the substitution
$u = \sec^2 x$ actually does work if you do it correctly.
You do not get anything in the form of $\int u\;du$ that way;
instead, you get something easier.
I should have acknowledged earlier that while $\int u\;du$ is one form
you might hope to achieve from a substitution, really the point is just
to get the integral into some form you know how to solve.
Answer: Notice, we have $$\int\sec^2x \tan x dx$$ Let $\tan x=t\implies \sec^2 xdx=dt$
$$=\int tdt$$ $$=\frac{t^2}{2}+C$$ setting the value $t=\tan x$  $$=\frac{(\tan x)^2}{2}+C$$$$=\color{red}{\frac{\tan^2x}{2}+C}$$
Answer: Your substitution $u=\sec^2 x$ is actually a good one, but it looks like you made an error somewhere.
$$\int\sec^2x\tan x dx$$
$$u = \sec^2 x\implies du = 2\sec x\cdot\sec x\tan xdx = 2\sec^2x\tan x dx$$
so the integral becomes
$$\int\sec^2x\tan x dx = \int\frac{1}{2}\cdot 2\sec^2 x\tan xdx=\int \frac{1}{2}du=\frac{1}{2}u+C=\frac{1}{2}\sec^2x+C$$
Comment: Yes, one way to do this is if you already know the answer. Or you can just _guess_ that the substitution might work, calculate $du$, and see what you can make of it. And oh, look, lucky guess. It seems to me that a lot of integration is like that--you recognize an integral you've seen before, or you try a particular trick to see if it works. At least that was my experience with first-year calculus, and thankfully after that I didn't have to remember most of that stuff except when I was _teaching_ it.
Comment: Thanks for pointing this out. My answer was too quick to suggest that $\int u\;du$ is "the" form that one wants the integral to take after substitution.
Comment: It works, but its kind of like cheating because it presupposes that you already know the answer. The best substitution here: $u=\frac{1}{2}\sec^2x$ hehe
Comment: The guess $u = \frac12 \sec^2 x$ actually makes a lot of sense even before you know the answer, because you can already see there's probably going to be a factor of $2$ in the derivative of $\sec^2 x$, so by multiplying by $\frac12$ you trade off a more complicated $u$ for a simpler $du$ (which is often a good tradeoff).
Answer: The last two answers, from Harish and egreg, are the same.  Integrating egreg's construction produces $\frac{\sec^2x}{2} + C$, and that from Harish produces $\frac{tan^2x}{2} + C_1$. Choosing $C_1 = 1/2 + C$ for the latter, yields $\frac{tan^2x+1}{2} + C = \frac{sec^2x}{2} + C,$ as it should.
Answer: ∫Sec^2x.Tanx dx
But we know d(Secx)/dx = Secx.Tanx
By substituting we change the integral to the form,
∫Secx d(Secx)
This is of the form
∫xdx
..
So we have ,
Sec^2x/2 +C
Where C is an arbitrary constant. Feel free to edit
Answer: You don't need to remember complicated formulas: just recall
$$
\sec x=\frac{1}{\cos x},\qquad
\tan x=\frac{\sin x}{\cos x}
$$
so your integral is
$$
\int \frac{\sin x}{\cos^3 x}\,dx=
\int -\frac{1}{t^3}\,dt
$$
with the substitution $t=\cos x$.
Comment: I think it is helpful to remember some of the somewhat more complicated trig integrals and derivatives when you need to come up with a more "creative" method to solve a harder problem, like $\int \sec(x)^m \tan(x)^n dx$ for various positive integers $m,n$. I don't know how I would come up with the procedure for these kinds of problems without thinking things like "substituting $u=\sec(x)$ will absorb a secant and a tangent into the du", "substituting $u=\tan(x)$ will absorb two secants into the du" and "secants and tangents can be interconverted two at a time using $\sec(x)^2=\tan(x)^2+1$".
Comment: @Ian I'm not saying that those formulas are useless (but I believe they're sometimes abused); first go with simple methods, I think this is better.
Comment: I actually prefer Using $\tan$ and $\sec$ because they seem much simpler to me than converting to rational functions. $(\tan x)' = \sec^2 x$ and $(\sec x)' = \sec x \tan x$  go hand-in-hand

Integrate $\int\sec ^2 x \tan x\, dx$


Ignite's Merge SQL Does Not Insert New Row When Used with Nested Select

Question: When Merge SQL is used with nested Select, Merge does not handle aggregation correctly for new rows. For example, the table is
CREATE TABLE Test1 (
  key1 int  PRIMARY key,
  Name varCHAR(52),
  count int
) WITH "template=REPLICATED, backups=0, CACHE_NAME=Test1";

To merge new and existing rows, the following Merge SQL is used because it is not known which rows already exist or not. This type of merge / upsert is typical for count aggregation use cases.
MERGE INTO Test1(key1, name, count) VALUES
  (1, 'aaa', 500 + (SELECT count  FROM Test1 WHERE KEY1 = 1)),
  (2, 'bbb', 700 + (SELECT count  FROM Test1 WHERE KEY1 = 2)),
   ...
  (1000, 'zzz', 350 + (SELECT count  FROM Test1 WHERE KEY1 = 1000)),

However, for new rows, Merge stores NULL for count instead of the specified count values.  This type of aggregation on the values of a column is typical for merge / upsert for aggregation use cases. I also tried to use casewhen and ifnull on the nested select clause, but neither one resolves the issue. Is there a work-around solution for this Merge's issue ?
Also, if there is such a work-around solution, the use of nested select in Merge per row would cause the SQL string to be very long for doing Merge for mass number of rows, which is also typical for upsert operation. Does Ignite Merge have a short-hand SQL version similar to what MemSql provides for the entire SQL string rather than per individual row as in
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE count  = count  + VALUES(count)

Thanks.
Michael
Answer: Have you tried COALESCE()?
(1, 'aaa', 500 + COALESCE((SELECT count  FROM Test1 WHERE KEY1 = 1), 0)),


I purchased a mobile home with my money out of a settlement I got

Question: What if it is just two friends who are no longer friends. I payed for my mobile home in full with my own money but put him on the title. Can I sell my share which is the full price to someone else?
Comment: What country... regulation vary. This is more apt on law.se ... if your friend is on title his consent is required.
Comment: Why would anyone pay the full price to own a 1/2 share with a stranger?
Comment: By putting your friend on the title you may have created a can of worms - I believe there is a presumption he is a part owner - and the assumption would not be that the friend was put on the title "for no reason".  It probably varies between jurisdictions, but there is probably a presumption that there were additional elements of the relationship which could entitle your friend to part (half?) the proceeds of ownership, absent documents to the contrary.
Answer: not enough data  for example does it show you or him or you and him on the title - "or" allows 100% ownership if either of you dies and "and" denotes 50% - you'd need to get a declaratory judgment that establishes his lack on contribution - and other factors of your original understanding  - sort it out in court if the facts stand in your favor - though the verbal understanding between you as to original intent of the purchase can get hairy -  plus, who is living in it -  if you hold and maintain control you could invoke UCC criteria that includes express (written) notice of you taking over control  then if you have control and pay the taxes (most states it is 7 years) you can claim adverse possession -   but sounds like you got yourself tied up in a mess that would cost you to resolve and maybe not to your advantage - 1st try to tie him into some written understand on your original agreement as a place to at least start


Creating a table - the easiest way possible

Question: I'm working on a website and I need the users to define the columns for a table.
There are different types of columns which might be text, numeric, URL, email and so on. So every column has the name and the type.
This is a critical step in the service and I need this process to be as easy as possible. Tests showed that our current method, which is text input and a drop down for each column is not intuitively translated in users' understanding to column title and type...
I'm looking for solutions, including to buy a component that can let the users do it in the easiest way possible.
Thanks for your help guys!!
Comment: Reads like a homework assignment, but even so, a good approach is to ask your users what they expect, then do some experiments to see what works best for them. Good luck.
Comment: Already done, the current approach is not working well. I'm looking for a way to create a table using drag and drop or possibly some other solution.
Comment: Okay, so what did they say when you asked them? In my experience, it is rare for users to have no clue about what they want.
Comment: _"Tests showed that our current method, which is text input and a drop down for each column is not intuitively translated in users' understanding to column title and type"_ Why not? Not trying to be smart, but on the face of it using text input and drop down is a totally reasonable and appropriate solution, so it makes me think the implementation is the problem, not the choice of controls. Can you share a screenshot etc to help us better appreciate what's going on?
Comment: Have you indicated to your users beforehand, that you're building a table for them, and each set of text and dropdown translate into a table column?
Answer: If you treat this like a conversation, it would probably go something like this:

Human "I want a new column in my table"
System "What do you want to call your new column?"
Human "I want my column to be called . . ."
System "What type of data will this column contain?"
Human "The column will contain numbers"
System "Where do you want this column to be placed?"
. . .

So looking at a conversation like this, a text input and a simple drop-down field seem like the really obvious way to support this task, i.e. very intuitive.
I don't know who you tested or even what type of test you performed, but I struggle to understand why someone would find a text field and simple drop-down field confusing (i.e. the opposite to intuitive), when it is aligned so closely with the natural "conversation" a human has with a computer.
Comment: Appreciate all the comments, thank you. The problem in using only a text input and a drop down is the mis-fit with user's mental models. The problem is that without using a preview of a table, the only indication that these choices become a column is the title of this section - Define Cloumns. So I still think a WYSIWYG component of creating a table is better. I just didn't find any website that has done this before.
Comment: I just demonstrated that the flow between the user and the website is absolutely not confusing - in fact it is very clear. I need to see your design before commenting any further. Can you share a rough mock-up?
Comment: So a text field and a drop-down is not the confusing part, which suggests there is something else in your interaction design which is causing the usability problems you identified in your testing.


How to debug Linux kernel with JTAG + GDB?

Question: I've successfully established a JTAG connection and serial port connection to my development board. I've followed the below diagram (with a little bit of difference).
my GDB_client is on my Linux host but my OpenOCD is on my windows host and they communicate with each other using GDB_server over network. they communicate with each other easily and I can load applications to my board via GDB on my Linux over JTAG.

this is my platform specifications:
SOC: STM32H743 (Cortex m7 single core -> ARMv7E-M)
Internal Flash: 2MB (only u-boot is in the flash memory)
Board: Waveshare CoreH7XXI dev board
On-board DRAM: 8MB
SDCARD: 1GB (the ROOTFS and Linux kernel are in the SD card)
Bootloader: mainline U-boot
kernel:     mainline Linux kernel

Debug Probe: STLink V2

According to this guide:
Loading a kernel in memory
Once you are used to using gdb to debug kernels you will want to use gdb to directly load kernels onto your target. The most practical way of doing this is to set a hardware breakpoint at the start of the kernel and reset your board using the JTAG reset signal. Your boot loader will initialize your board and the execution will stop at the start of the kernel. After that you can load a kernel into memory and run it.
I put beak point on the starting point of my kernel, but the problem is that it won't stop on the breakpoint to let me load the vmlinux file to my memory.
This is what I'm doing:
(gdb) file vmlinux
(gdb) target remote 192.168.1.53:8888
(gdb) break __init_begin
(gdb) cont
(gdb) mon reset #perhaps this needs to be done from the openocd telnet session..
Breakpoint 1, 0xc0008000 in stext ()
(gdb) load vmlinux

I've also tried this but again, it didn't stop on the breakpoint:
(gdb) break *0xD0008000
Breakpoint 9 at 0xd0008000: file arch/arm/kernel/head-nommu.S, line 61.

UPDATE:
Sometimes it works and sometimes it won't. It seems after resetting my board, I should swiftly pause my program using gdb and again resume it to make it work. Why is this happening?
Answer: Have you tried disabling the 'kaslr' option?
I am also trying to set a breakpoint but mine never hits.
I tried disabling it by passing the 'nokaslr' in bootargs but this does not take effect. I am assuming that it is not taking effect because on the target board(Xilinx Zynq Ultrascale+) I still see the 'full randomization' option selected.
I used cat /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space on the target board.
I am not sure if this is the way to go but my gut says that this address mismatch is the reason for the breakpoint not being hit.


How do I test the Door lock relay on a Dodge TIPM?

Question: I have a 2011 Dodge Ram.
The drivers door lock switch does not lock the doors.
The passenger door lock switch will lock all doors, including the drivers.
I replaced the drivers door switch with a new part, but had the same result.
Per the diagram I have, the switch goes to the TIPM, through a 25a fuse (tested good), to the "Door Unlock Driver Relay" then to the latch.
I suspect either the relay or the wires.  The relay is soldered into the TIPM. How do I test it?
Answer: Have you found the physical location of the relay? If so, testing it is pretty easy. You have a power/ground which switches it, then there are the pass throughs. 87 & 87a will either/or be on, depending on whether the solenoid is energized (I don't remember which). Powering the connection at 86 energizes the circuit. At rest you should see continuity between 30 and 87a. When energized you'll see continuity between 30 and 87. You'll hear it click when you energize the circuit (86 & 86). If you don't have continuity in both (depending on energized or not), your relay is busted and will need replaced.
As a side note, from your diagram, it is a typical relay and will not be hard soldered into the mix. If it is a typical relay, you can easily replace it with another to see if it's working or not ... even one which can be traded out which supports something else (temporarily, of course). You can find these 5-pin relays at almost any automotive parts store.
Comment: Thanks for this.  I'll throw a tester on it this weekend.


Image thumbnail generation (on S3/Cloudfront integration) returns blank when first generated

Question: For a client site with S3/Cloudfront integration, we are seeing that images will not be able to load for the first time if they have not been generated before. I'm guessing this is because it takes time for the generated thumbnail to be saved to S3 then propagated to Cloudfront, so images will always return nothing the very first time. Is this correct, or are we missing something, or are there workarounds?
Answer: Got the solution through Craft support, as well as this similar question: Image Transforms - Image not processed until second page refresh
In summary, use the generateTransformsBeforePageLoad settings in Craft CMS.
e.g.
project>config>general.php
<?php
/**
 * General Configuration
 *
 * All of your system's general configuration settings go in here. You can see a
 * list of the available settings in vendor/craftcms/cms/src/config/GeneralConfig.php.
 *
 * @see craft\config\GeneralConfig
 */

return [
    // Global settings
    '*' => [
        // Default Week Start Day (0 = Sunday, 1 = Monday...)
        'defaultWeekStartDay'  => 0,

    // Enable CSRF Protection (recommended)
    'enableCsrfProtection' => true,

    // Whether generated URLs should omit "index.php"
    'omitScriptNameInUrls' => true,

    // Image variant be created on Asset save (aka BeforePageLoad)
    'generateTransformsBeforePageLoad' => true,

    // The secure key Craft will use for hashing and encrypting data
    'securityKey'                      => getenv('SECURITY_KEY'),
],

To set that in specific environment, e.g. in Live only, copy and paste
'generateTransformsBeforePageLoad' => true, into the desired environment
e.g.
// Live environment settings
    'live' => [
        'devMode' => false,
        'generateTransformsBeforePageLoad' => true,
        'enableTemplateCaching' => true,
        'allowAutoUpdates' => false,
    ],


What are the differences between PMD and FindBugs?

Question: There was a question comparing PMD and CheckStyle. However, I can't find a nice breakdown on the differences/similarities between PMD and FindBugs. I believe a key difference is that PMD works on source code, while FindBugs works on compiled bytecode files. But in terms of capabilities, should it be an either/or choice or do they complement each other?
Answer: I'm using both. I think they complement each other.
As you said, PMD works on source code and therefore finds problems like: violation of naming conventions, lack of curly braces, misplaced null check, long parameter list, unnecessary constructor, missing break in switch, etc. PMD also tells you about the Cyclomatic complexity of your code which I find very helpful (FindBugs doesn't tell you about the Cyclomatic complexity).
FindBugs works on bytecode. Here are some problems FindBugs finds which PMD doesn't: equals() method fails on subtypes, clone method may return null, reference comparison of Boolean values, impossible cast, 32bit int shifted by an amount not in the range of 0-31, a collection which contains itself, equals method always returns true, an infinite loop, etc.
Usually each of them finds a different set of problems. Use both. These tools taught me a lot about how to write good Java code.
Comment: What is the specific error code that you saw when a collection contains itself and why is that marked a probable bug by FindBugs?
Comment: well since Sonarqube 6.3 no longer... Sonarqube needs now Java 8 and Findbugs is only supporting Java 7 yet
Answer: The best feature of PMD, is its XPath Rules, bundled with a Rule Designer to let you easily construct new rules from code samples (similar to RegEx and XPath GUI builders). FindBugs is stronger out of the box, but constructing project specific rules and patterns is very important.
For example, I encountered a performance problem involving 2 nested for loops, resulting in a O(n^2) running time, which could easily be avoided. I used PMD to construct an ad-hoc query, to review other instances of nested for loops - //ForStatement/Statement//ForStatement. This pointed out 2 more instances of the problem. This is not a generic rule whatsoever.
Answer: PMD is

famous
used widely in industry
you can add your rules in xml
gives you detailed analysis in Errors levels and warning levels
you can also scan your code for "copy and paste lines". Duplicate code. This gives good idea about implementing java oops.
Comment: Doesn't speak to FindBugs; they're complementary as their problem sets are not identical.


Media Player MPMediaItemArtwork Memory Leak

Question: I seem to be getting a memory leak when getting the album artwork for the currently playing item with this code:
<code>MPMediaItem *playingItem = self.musicPlayer.nowPlayingItem;
MPMediaItemArtwork *artwork = [playingItem valueForProperty:MPMediaItemPropertyArtwork];
</code>
I have tried [artwork release]; even though I didn't alloc artwork but I am still getting a leak. Any Ideas?
Thanks.
Comment: That is very little code to work on, you must be allocating more memory elsewhere in the application that makes this go over the top.
Answer: I'm fairly certain that the MPMediaItemArtwork is causing the leak. Instruments listed the leaked objects as MPMediaItemArtwork and MPMediaItemArtworkInternal.
For what it's worth, [artwork release] seems to decrease the leaking and removing the artwork code completely kills the leak.


Adding images directly to public folder

Question: I have over 9000 photos that I need to add to my site however using the upload feature in assets is taking an extremely long time. I have tried to just simply add the images to the correct folder in public but they are not showing up on craft. Is there something additional I must do for them to show up or is using the upload feature the only way for photos to show in assets?
Answer: You need to use the Update Asset Indexes tool in Settings in the control panel:

Whenever there are files within your asset source that were not added directly by Craft (e.g. via FTP), you will need to tell Craft to go and look for them. You can do that from the "Update Asset Indexes" tool within Settings.
Comment: I've done that but it doesn't seem to do anything. The process finishes pretty quickly but would I have to wait a bit for anything to show up since there are 9000+ photos?
Comment: 9000 files would take a fairly long time to index. Are you sure you've added them to the correct folder? What kind of files are you adding – jpegs, pngs or something else?

Adding images directly to public folder