pipe commands inside find -exec? The Next CEO of Stack Overflowmissing argument to find -execHow to find first match in multiple filesHow does this find command using “find … -exec sh -c '…' sh +” work?Problem combining -or and -exec with find commandConvert order for find … -execHaving issues with FIND commands pruning directoriesCorrect location for piping and redirecting output in find -exec?find -exec ; economyTrying to add multiple grep commands within an execHow to rename a file to have the same name and extension as another file in same directory

Are there any limitations on attacking while grappling?

sp_blitzCache results Memory grants

Interfacing a button to MCU (and PC) with 50m long cable

Limits on contract work without pre-agreed price/contract (UK)

If/When UK leaves the EU, can a future goverment conduct a referendum to join the EU?

How to count occurrences of text in a file?

Several mode to write the symbol of a vector

Preparing Indesign booklet with .psd graphics for print

Has this building technique been used in an official set?

Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?

Is it ever safe to open a suspicious html file (e.g. email attachment)?

Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?

Bold, vivid family

Skipping indices in a product

Contours of a clandestine nature

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

Rotate a column

Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?

What happened in Rome, when the western empire "fell"?

Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis

Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration?

Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase "We went to the movies last night."?

Why do professional authors make "consistency" mistakes? And how to avoid them?



pipe commands inside find -exec?



The Next CEO of Stack Overflowmissing argument to find -execHow to find first match in multiple filesHow does this find command using “find … -exec sh -c '…' sh +” work?Problem combining -or and -exec with find commandConvert order for find … -execHaving issues with FIND commands pruning directoriesCorrect location for piping and redirecting output in find -exec?find -exec ; economyTrying to add multiple grep commands within an execHow to rename a file to have the same name and extension as another file in same directory










4















Let's suppose I want to find all .txt files and search for some string. I would do:



find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec egrep -iH 'something' '' ;


What if I want to do a more complex filtering, like this:



egrep something file.txt | egrep somethingelse | egrep other


Inside find -exec? (or similar)



Please keep in mind that I'm searching for a solution that I could easily type when I need it. I know that this could be done with a few lines using a shell script, but that isn't what I'm looking for.










share|improve this question




























    4















    Let's suppose I want to find all .txt files and search for some string. I would do:



    find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec egrep -iH 'something' '' ;


    What if I want to do a more complex filtering, like this:



    egrep something file.txt | egrep somethingelse | egrep other


    Inside find -exec? (or similar)



    Please keep in mind that I'm searching for a solution that I could easily type when I need it. I know that this could be done with a few lines using a shell script, but that isn't what I'm looking for.










    share|improve this question


























      4












      4








      4








      Let's suppose I want to find all .txt files and search for some string. I would do:



      find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec egrep -iH 'something' '' ;


      What if I want to do a more complex filtering, like this:



      egrep something file.txt | egrep somethingelse | egrep other


      Inside find -exec? (or similar)



      Please keep in mind that I'm searching for a solution that I could easily type when I need it. I know that this could be done with a few lines using a shell script, but that isn't what I'm looking for.










      share|improve this question
















      Let's suppose I want to find all .txt files and search for some string. I would do:



      find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec egrep -iH 'something' '' ;


      What if I want to do a more complex filtering, like this:



      egrep something file.txt | egrep somethingelse | egrep other


      Inside find -exec? (or similar)



      Please keep in mind that I'm searching for a solution that I could easily type when I need it. I know that this could be done with a few lines using a shell script, but that isn't what I'm looking for.







      shell find pipe






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 18 at 16:43









      terdon

      133k32266446




      133k32266446










      asked Mar 18 at 16:38









      1nt3rn3t1nt3rn3t

      232




      232




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          10














          If you must do it from within find, you need to call a shell:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec sh -c 'grep -EiH something "$1" | grep -E somethingelse | grep -E other' sh ;


          Other alternatives include using xargs instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" | 
          xargs -I grep -EiH something |
          grep -EiH somethingelse |
          grep -EiH other


          Or, much safer for arbitrary filenames (assuming your find supports -print0):



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          xargs -0 grep -EiH something |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other


          Or, you could just use a shell loop instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          while IFS= read -d '' file; do
          grep -Ei something "$file" |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other
          done





          share|improve this answer

























          • The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:57






          • 1





            ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

            – Kusalananda
            Mar 18 at 17:23


















          1














          Edit: This answer is not preferred, but is left here for comparison and illustration of potentially dangerous pitfalls in bash scripting.




          You can put bash (or another shell) as your -exec command:



          find -type -f -name "*.txt" -exec bash -c 'egrep -iH something "" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other' ;


          One of the downsides of doing it this way is that it creates more potential for nested quoting issues as your commands get more complex. If you want to avoid that, you can break it out into a for-loop:



          for i in $(find -type -f -name "*.txt"); do
          if egrep -iH something "$i" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other; then
          echo "Found something: $i"
          fi
          done





          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:59






          • 1





            That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

            – terdon
            Mar 18 at 17:04






          • 1





            This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

            – Kamil Maciorowski
            Mar 18 at 17:55











          • Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

            – trobinson
            Mar 18 at 20:20











          • @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

            – Cbhihe
            Mar 19 at 8:03











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507023%2fpipe-commands-inside-find-exec%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          10














          If you must do it from within find, you need to call a shell:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec sh -c 'grep -EiH something "$1" | grep -E somethingelse | grep -E other' sh ;


          Other alternatives include using xargs instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" | 
          xargs -I grep -EiH something |
          grep -EiH somethingelse |
          grep -EiH other


          Or, much safer for arbitrary filenames (assuming your find supports -print0):



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          xargs -0 grep -EiH something |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other


          Or, you could just use a shell loop instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          while IFS= read -d '' file; do
          grep -Ei something "$file" |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other
          done





          share|improve this answer

























          • The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:57






          • 1





            ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

            – Kusalananda
            Mar 18 at 17:23















          10














          If you must do it from within find, you need to call a shell:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec sh -c 'grep -EiH something "$1" | grep -E somethingelse | grep -E other' sh ;


          Other alternatives include using xargs instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" | 
          xargs -I grep -EiH something |
          grep -EiH somethingelse |
          grep -EiH other


          Or, much safer for arbitrary filenames (assuming your find supports -print0):



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          xargs -0 grep -EiH something |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other


          Or, you could just use a shell loop instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          while IFS= read -d '' file; do
          grep -Ei something "$file" |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other
          done





          share|improve this answer

























          • The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:57






          • 1





            ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

            – Kusalananda
            Mar 18 at 17:23













          10












          10








          10







          If you must do it from within find, you need to call a shell:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec sh -c 'grep -EiH something "$1" | grep -E somethingelse | grep -E other' sh ;


          Other alternatives include using xargs instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" | 
          xargs -I grep -EiH something |
          grep -EiH somethingelse |
          grep -EiH other


          Or, much safer for arbitrary filenames (assuming your find supports -print0):



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          xargs -0 grep -EiH something |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other


          Or, you could just use a shell loop instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          while IFS= read -d '' file; do
          grep -Ei something "$file" |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other
          done





          share|improve this answer















          If you must do it from within find, you need to call a shell:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -exec sh -c 'grep -EiH something "$1" | grep -E somethingelse | grep -E other' sh ;


          Other alternatives include using xargs instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" | 
          xargs -I grep -EiH something |
          grep -EiH somethingelse |
          grep -EiH other


          Or, much safer for arbitrary filenames (assuming your find supports -print0):



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          xargs -0 grep -EiH something |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other


          Or, you could just use a shell loop instead:



          find ./ -type f -name "*.txt" -print0 | 
          while IFS= read -d '' file; do
          grep -Ei something "$file" |
          grep -Ei somethingelse |
          grep -Ei other
          done






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 18 at 17:20









          Kusalananda

          138k17258428




          138k17258428










          answered Mar 18 at 16:51









          terdonterdon

          133k32266446




          133k32266446












          • The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:57






          • 1





            ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

            – Kusalananda
            Mar 18 at 17:23

















          • The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:57






          • 1





            ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

            – Kusalananda
            Mar 18 at 17:23
















          The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

          – 1nt3rn3t
          Mar 18 at 16:57





          The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

          – 1nt3rn3t
          Mar 18 at 16:57




          1




          1





          ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

          – Kusalananda
          Mar 18 at 17:23





          ... and xargs could also be used as xargs -I sh -c '...' sh , if one wanted to (it makes it possible to run parallel jobs with -P if one wanted to).

          – Kusalananda
          Mar 18 at 17:23













          1














          Edit: This answer is not preferred, but is left here for comparison and illustration of potentially dangerous pitfalls in bash scripting.




          You can put bash (or another shell) as your -exec command:



          find -type -f -name "*.txt" -exec bash -c 'egrep -iH something "" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other' ;


          One of the downsides of doing it this way is that it creates more potential for nested quoting issues as your commands get more complex. If you want to avoid that, you can break it out into a for-loop:



          for i in $(find -type -f -name "*.txt"); do
          if egrep -iH something "$i" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other; then
          echo "Found something: $i"
          fi
          done





          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:59






          • 1





            That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

            – terdon
            Mar 18 at 17:04






          • 1





            This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

            – Kamil Maciorowski
            Mar 18 at 17:55











          • Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

            – trobinson
            Mar 18 at 20:20











          • @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

            – Cbhihe
            Mar 19 at 8:03















          1














          Edit: This answer is not preferred, but is left here for comparison and illustration of potentially dangerous pitfalls in bash scripting.




          You can put bash (or another shell) as your -exec command:



          find -type -f -name "*.txt" -exec bash -c 'egrep -iH something "" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other' ;


          One of the downsides of doing it this way is that it creates more potential for nested quoting issues as your commands get more complex. If you want to avoid that, you can break it out into a for-loop:



          for i in $(find -type -f -name "*.txt"); do
          if egrep -iH something "$i" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other; then
          echo "Found something: $i"
          fi
          done





          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:59






          • 1





            That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

            – terdon
            Mar 18 at 17:04






          • 1





            This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

            – Kamil Maciorowski
            Mar 18 at 17:55











          • Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

            – trobinson
            Mar 18 at 20:20











          • @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

            – Cbhihe
            Mar 19 at 8:03













          1












          1








          1







          Edit: This answer is not preferred, but is left here for comparison and illustration of potentially dangerous pitfalls in bash scripting.




          You can put bash (or another shell) as your -exec command:



          find -type -f -name "*.txt" -exec bash -c 'egrep -iH something "" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other' ;


          One of the downsides of doing it this way is that it creates more potential for nested quoting issues as your commands get more complex. If you want to avoid that, you can break it out into a for-loop:



          for i in $(find -type -f -name "*.txt"); do
          if egrep -iH something "$i" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other; then
          echo "Found something: $i"
          fi
          done





          share|improve this answer















          Edit: This answer is not preferred, but is left here for comparison and illustration of potentially dangerous pitfalls in bash scripting.




          You can put bash (or another shell) as your -exec command:



          find -type -f -name "*.txt" -exec bash -c 'egrep -iH something "" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other' ;


          One of the downsides of doing it this way is that it creates more potential for nested quoting issues as your commands get more complex. If you want to avoid that, you can break it out into a for-loop:



          for i in $(find -type -f -name "*.txt"); do
          if egrep -iH something "$i" | egrep somethingelse | egrep other; then
          echo "Found something: $i"
          fi
          done






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 20 at 6:43

























          answered Mar 18 at 16:55









          trobinsontrobinson

          443




          443







          • 1





            The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:59






          • 1





            That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

            – terdon
            Mar 18 at 17:04






          • 1





            This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

            – Kamil Maciorowski
            Mar 18 at 17:55











          • Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

            – trobinson
            Mar 18 at 20:20











          • @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

            – Cbhihe
            Mar 19 at 8:03












          • 1





            The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

            – 1nt3rn3t
            Mar 18 at 16:59






          • 1





            That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

            – terdon
            Mar 18 at 17:04






          • 1





            This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

            – Kamil Maciorowski
            Mar 18 at 17:55











          • Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

            – trobinson
            Mar 18 at 20:20











          • @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

            – Cbhihe
            Mar 19 at 8:03







          1




          1





          The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

          – 1nt3rn3t
          Mar 18 at 16:59





          The first one is exactly what I was looking for. Extremely simple and small enough to type depending on my needs. Thanks.

          – 1nt3rn3t
          Mar 18 at 16:59




          1




          1





          That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

          – terdon
          Mar 18 at 17:04





          That for loop is a very bad idea.Also known as bash pitfall #1.

          – terdon
          Mar 18 at 17:04




          1




          1





          This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

          – Kamil Maciorowski
          Mar 18 at 17:55





          This "" in your first command may even lead to code injection. Imagine you got files from me and there's a file literally named " & rm -rf ~ & : ".txt. Luckily for you -type -f is invalid, it just saved your home directory. Fix the typo and try again. :) terdon did it right: find … -exec sh -c '… "$1" …' foo ;.

          – Kamil Maciorowski
          Mar 18 at 17:55













          Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

          – trobinson
          Mar 18 at 20:20





          Thanks for the information! Yeah, the -type -f is a typo I make constantly when using find, and I didn't notice it in my answer. Whoops. terdon's answer is better, but I'll leave this for comparative purposes.

          – trobinson
          Mar 18 at 20:20













          @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

          – Cbhihe
          Mar 19 at 8:03





          @terdon: tx for referencing the mywiki.wooledge.org page. It's nice to have a bunch of GPs neatly summarized in one place.

          – Cbhihe
          Mar 19 at 8:03

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507023%2fpipe-commands-inside-find-exec%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

          random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

          Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye