requinix

Can you PM me some information about your other account? Like the display name and email address? And I assume you've already checked the spam folder?

That's why you don't do it by yourself but hire people who know how to do this kind of stuff. I'd be surprised if you can find somebody online, just some random person you find online, who actually knows what's going on with the systems and isn't subject to an NDA. Another approach is not doing the booking yourself but using a third-party system, like Expedia. You're much more likely to get something working that way than by actually negotiating with hotels yourself. Going that route makes things a lot easier, and as long as you obey whatever restrictions and terms of service come with the system you could do whatever you wanted.

(obligatory disclaimer about getting business/legal/finance advice on the internet) To lower transaction fees, often these kinds of things are done in bulk. Meaning when you take money from the user, you don't immediately transfer it to the (let's just say) hotel. Instead you keep records and then periodically, like monthly, settle accounts. Bookings likely require use of some sort of API so that you can find out about available rooms and provide reservations.

I assume Round 2 is supposed to have Bob and Olivia? As it so happens, what you're describing wasn't quite covered by grissom or Barand. So that's awesome. Would it be enough to shuffle the list of ropers and the list of healers, pair everyone, and then "rotate" one of the lists? Like it goes M/N/O/P/Q then N/O/P/Q/M then O/P/Q/M/N and so on. The advantage is that it's really, really easy to do, but the disadvantage is that the results aren't random from one round to the next: someone can look at the assignments in one round and tell what the assignments will be in the next round.

Alright, so before things get out of hand again: Let's say you have ropers - Alice - Bob - Cindy and healers - Martin - Nicky - Olivia Exactly what do you want to happen with them?

It's not a counting "method" but a different situation. I'm going to stick with the racing analogy. You're picking one driver and one car at a time (A1). The other drivers and the other cars are irrelevant. This driver+car does a qualifying lap around the track. You then give them a different car (A2), they lap, then lap again with the third car (A3). Repeat that with the other two drivers (B1-3, C1-3) and you have a total of nine qualifying laps. This way you can see a driver's performance change with respect to which car they were driving (A1-3, B1-3, C1-3), or alternatively how different drivers handle the same car (A-C1, A-C2, A-C3). grissom is picking all the drivers and all the cars and putting them into a race all at once. Then the assignments change, except rather than have every driver get a different car, what changes is that somebody (perhaps more than one person) gets a different car. Thus the race lineup as a whole changes, even if some or most (but not all) of the drivers stay in the same car they were just driving. The combinations are 1. A1B2C3 2. A1B3C2 3. A2B1C3 4. A2B3C1 5. A3B1C2 6. A3B2C1 This is more geared towards measuring the performance of a driver with respect to how the other drivers are doing. As is what happens a real race. For example, with races 1 and 2 you can see how driver A (who kept the same car for both) did when B and C changed cars. If you think A's car is the variable, you can compare races 3 and 4 where A used a different car from before (but kept it for both races) and B and C changed. Or races 5 and 6. For driver B you can compare 3+5/1+6/2+4 and for C it's 4+6/2+5/1+3. tldr: you're counting driver+car combinations, grissom is counting driver+car+driver+car+driver+car combinations.

There are 10! ways of combining all drivers with all cars. There are 100 ways of combining one driver with one car. You're both right.

Just because it uses the same = symbol doesn't mean it works the same way. That does not make sense. Rewrite the expression in terms of X alone. Meaning you have to end up at X = ....

The site you PMed me is behaving exactly like your original rewriting rules are still in place. What's in your .htaccess now?

You'd have to change the first RewriteCond to check if the HTTPS flag is off, but otherwise yes. Only a couple more days? Might as well wait. And when you do the switch you can enable HSTS too. - HTTP Strict Transport Security - OWASP

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^https://www.example.com.au$ [NC]That will never match. The HTTP_HOST is literally just the hostname. You need to check the "HTTPS" flag separately. Redirect https to http, for some crazy reason, as well as no-www to www? RewriteCond %{HTTPS} =on [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !=www.example.com.au RewriteRule ^ http://www.example.com.au%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R]