We had to do a restore from a month-old backup, now there is a conflict with order numbers. How to set Order…

Magento 1.9.1
Porto theme

We had to do a complete restore from a month old backup. Now there is a problem with Paypal versus the Order numbers because Magento is assigning the Order numbers that we already used/assigned in the month since.

How can I set Magento to start assigning order numbers from a higher number (to skip a thousand or so)?

Display order of Shared Albums since Mojave

Since I updated my Mac Mini (late 2012) to OS 10.14 any Shared Albums in Photos have been showing last, rather than first. Photos (version 4.0)>View>Sort shows Keep Sorted By Newest First with a tick but greyed out with no options. I look on my Mac Book Air (mid 2011) which is still on High Sierra and the same 2 recent Shared Albums have loaded in correct sequence i.e. First.

Magento 2 Unique constraint violation found when changing order status

After placing an order successfully in the backend we receive a “Unique constraint violation found” error when trying to change its status or cancelling it. I already looked into the system.log and exception.log, but nothing is found there. Can someone please help me debug this? Where do I start? For the order we used Purchase Order as payment method and UPS for shipment.

Magento 2.2.6 running in developer mode.

Unique constraint violation found error


Does General Order 24 really exist?

This question mentions General Order 24, which supposedly allows a Starfleet Captain to order the destruction of all life on a planet. Looking at the linked Memory Alpha page, that appears to be based primarily on the TOS episode “A Taste of Armageddon” though it also mentions “Whom Gods Destroy”.

But here’s the thing: does General Order 24 actually exist? It seems rather out of character for Starfleet, even in the days of the original series; I always assumed that Kirk was bluffing and Scotty was playing along.

I don’t remember much about “Whom Gods Destroy” and there’s nothing in the Wiki page that obviously suggests any connection to the putative General Order 24, so I’m thinking that might just have been an assumption on the part of whoever wrote that particular article.

NB: I’m looking for direct-from-original-canon evidence, e.g., if there’s a quote from Whom Gods Destroy which explicitly mentions General Order 24, that would be sufficient to prove that it exists. Conversely, if the screenplay for “A Taste” has stage directions along the lines of “Scotty looks puzzled” that would pretty much confirm that it doesn’t. Or a quote from one of the writers or directors would do.

I’m not going to be too picky, mind you, I just ask that you don’t quote Memory Alpha back at me when it is Memory Alpha’s accuracy that I’m questioning. 🙂

Is there a better way to memorize the stroke order of 恵, 専, and 敷?

The three kanji 恵, 専, and 敷 share the same first 6 strokes. Using the traditional radicals I could describe them as being composed “一, 日, 丨” at the start and then finishing “…心”, “…寸”, “…⼂, 方, 攵” respectively. However, are these 6 strokes derived from some older kanji? If so, does this kanji have a meaning and what would it be in Japanese? For example, many kanji use 冫 on the left side and this is derived from æ°´ which means water or みず in Japanese. The trouble I have is the three kanji (恵, 専, and 敷) don’t seem to share any meaning in common that I can use to give meaning to strokes they share.

Word order and inverted subjects—should the pronoun have directly followed the verb in this sentence?

Ich lerne Deutsch an meiner Uni, und ich habe eine Frage über word order.

I wrote the following sentence for a practice oral exam in our class:

Ich wollte heute Schnitzel essen, aber wir wohnen in den USA, und deshalb hat die Mensa sie nicht gehabt.

I was wondering if that last part is grammatically correct. What I wanted to say is “thus, the cafeteria did not have it,” where “it” is “sie” (die Schnitzel).

I suspect I should have inverted the subject and instead written:

…und deshalb hat sie die Mensa nicht gehabt.

Would that have been the technically correct word order?