cmurf

From casual conversations with merchants, they are charged the same fees on debit cards as credit cards.

Apparently debit cards support either debit or credit transactions, and (some/all/most) POS systems are defaulting to credit? I notice I'm often asked to sign, rather than receiving a PIN prompt. That's how I know if the charge is going to be debit (PIN) or credit(sign).

And it is only debit that incurs the near cash equivalence due to far lower transaction fees.

Seems it is the law.

https://www.nteu.org/blog/2025/11/03/ShutdownBackPay

The longer it goes on, I expect another statistic which is once the backpay check clears, people quit. Because this is bullshit. The backpay will not cover the financing costs of going into debt to cover bills, food, rent, mortgage. The government should foot that bill, but I don't think they will.

The entire event was over in less than a minute, and during that time there’s only one thing pilots are working on: maintaining what little control they have, and gaining as much altitude as possible without loss of control.

This is consuming all mental processing, there are no spare cycles.

This wasn’t a salvageable situation by having more information after the engine separated. If a sensor could have provided a warning of engine failure well before V1, that would be helpful.

I expect the questions will focus on what information existed that should have resulted in aborting the takeoff. Not what information was needed to continue.

Treasury should offer to pay 5 cents per penny turned in. That's a penny more than it costs to make, but probably still cheaper than the cost to resuming making them, and might incentivize getting stagnant pennies to move out of circulation.

Set dates to reduce this payment, eventually to 0, thus expiring the penny.

Taxation without representation? Her constituents would seem to have standing.

If UEFI Secure Boot is enabled, Fedora kernels detect this and lockdown. And hibernation is then disabled. The reason is lack of an autheticated hibernation image. This work has had several proposals but still isn't implemented.

I'm not sure of the status on other distro kernels but allowing it would be a significant bypass of Secure Boot's purpose.

It wasn't only family members. Biden granted clemency or pardons to over 4200 people. Notably for the same blanket pardon from 2014 to 2025 for family members, includes Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley.

And all of the members of Congress on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack for anything having to do with their role on that committee.

Schiff was on that committee. He said the pardon was unnecessary and unwise.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-jos...

Some workloads may do better with zswap. Cache is compressed, and pages evicted to disk based swap on an LRU basis.

The case of swap thrashing sounds like a misbehaving program, which can maybe be tamed by oomd.

System responsiveness though needs a complete resource control regime in place, that preserves minimum resources for certain critical processes. This is done with cgroupsv2. By establishing minimum resources, the kernel will limit resources for other processes. Sure, they will suffer. That’s the idea.

Which is why it's infuriating that health care companies implement secure email by asking the customer to click on a 3rd party link in an email.

An email they're saying is an insecure delivery system.

But we're supposed to click on links in these special emails.

Fuck!

You answered a question I didn’t ask.

In his 1st inaugural address, what do you suppose Lincoln meant by the government ceasing?

Would people today tolerate tyranny to avoid it?

Part 103 vehicles can't be operated over congested areas. FAA considers anything more than sparsely populated as congested. A single church in the middle of nowhere might be sparsely populated.

I'm not even sure you can take off or land in your own neighborhood. Is a neighborhood a settlement? shrug

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-103.15

See Simmons (2010 legal interpretation from the FAA chief legal counsel. https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FAA000000000L...

---

Also, no operations in common types of airspace: no bravo, charlie, or delta (or class e surface area). This may not be difficult seeing as they tend to exist over congested areas which must be avoided anyway.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-103.17

---

Part 103 ultralights are vehicles, not aircraft, therefore not general aviation. Therefore, I'm not sure who will insure these operations. It may be the realm of self-insured.

I disagree.

There’s significant amounts of airspace set aside for military use. They can turn off the transponder there.

When operating in congested terminal area airspace they need to follow the same rules general aviation, air taxi and airlines follow. They aren’t performing unique maneuvers in these areas.

It’s particularly important for low flying aircraft to have transponder enabled, sometimes referred to as secondary radar. It’s more effective than primary radar, which has limited low altitude coverage. And only ATC can track a target by primary radar.

There's APU and/or RAT to fallback on in case of the rare dual engine failure.

I assume they just want to redirect the required payroll taxes into the stock market via privatization. Currently it goes into the trust fund which buys U.S. treasuries.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude: Why People Enslave Themselves to Authority By E. LaBoetie (Philosopher and Writer, 1530-1563)

https://billkatz.substack.com/p/discourse-on-voluntary-servi...

But if not one thing is yielded to him, if without any violence he is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and nothing, just as when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.

As far as I'm aware 14 CFR 107 lacks anything like what applies to aircraft in case of power plant failure.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-91#p-91.119(a)

The catch all under both regulations is anything that's "careless and wreckless"

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.23

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13

Was this particular operation careless and wreckless? Could be.

Someone else in the thread said the weather conditions included mist. I'm skeptical misty conditions also permits a minimum 3 miles of visibility, but what do I know I'm just a pilot.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.51(c)

But also, it's possible the waiver I assume Amazon is operating under could include visibility. I assume this because Part 107 requires visual line of sight operation, but Amazon's operation sounds like beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). I don't know anything about that. I'd like to think the waiver and the operating requirements are public information, but I don't know that either.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-107.31

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.205(c)

The video perspective might be misleading - but if the area surrounding the crane is as totally devoid from other obstacles as it appears? I wonder if the operator maybe didn't see the crane. How is that possible? No idea.

14 CFR 107 covers visual line of sight commercial UAS operations. My two cents is the operator should fly around or over and well clear of the crane. They're given a wide latitude. If within 400' of a structure, they can fly up to 400' above the highest point of that structure.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.51(b)

However, it seems probable these operations are BVLOS (beyond visual line of sight), which requires a waiver from the FAA. In which case most of 107.205 applies. I'm not sure if the operating agreement between Amazon and FAA is public information.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.205

Avoiding structures is pretty basic to operational control and responsibility. The fact they hit a seemingly obvious and avoidable structure, the ensuing loss of control being inevitable, which can (and in this case did) lead to on the ground injuries. Pretty remarkable operational failure in my opinion.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.23(a)

We’ve completed our own internal review of this incident and are confident that there wasn’t an issue with the drones or the technology that supports them, Terrence Clark, an Amazon spokesperson told CNN. Nonetheless, we’ve introduced additional processes like enhanced visual landscape inspections to better monitor for moving obstructions such as cranes.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/us/arizona-amazon-drones-cras...

> Basically, btrfs appears to be not fit for purpose. The entire point of such a filesystem is that it should be able to run in adverse environments (like faulty hardware) and be tolerant to errors. It should always be possible to repair such a filesystem back to a canonical state.

Pretty sure all file systems and their developers are unsurprised by file system corruption occurring on bad hardware.

There are also drives that report successful flush and fua, but the expected (meta)data is not yet on stable media. That results in out of order writes. There's no consequence unless there's a badly timed crash or power failure. In that case there's out of order writes and possibly dropped writes (what was left in the write cache).

File system developers have told me that their designs do not account for drives miscommunicating flush/fua succeeding when it hasn't. This is like operating under nobarrier some of the time.

Overwriting file systems' metadata have fixed locations, therefore quite a lot of assumptions can be made during repair about what should be there, inferring it from metadata in other locations.

Btrfs has no fixed locations for metadata. This leads to unique flexibility, and repair difficulty. Flexible: Being able to convert between different block group profiles (single, dup, and all the raids), and run on unequal sized drives, and conversion from any file system anybody wants to write the code for - because only the per device super blocks have fixed locations. Everything else can be written anywhere else. But the repair utility can't make many assumptions. And if the story told by the metadata that is present, isn't consistent, the repair necessarily must fail.

With Btrfs the first step is read-only rescue mount, which uses backup roots to find a valid root tree, and also the ability to ignore damaged trees. This read-only mount is often enough to extract important data that hasn't been (recently) backed up.

Since moving to Btrfs by default in Fedora almost 10 releases ago, we haven't seen more file system problems. One problem we do see more often is evidence of memory bitflips. This makes some sense because the file system metadata isn't nearly as big a target as data. And since both metadata and data are checksummed, Btrfs is more likely to detect such issues.

A 1:1 to 2:1 civilian to combatant ratio is reported by John Spencer, urban war researcher and chair at the Modern War Institute.

Spencer has said it will take years of research to confirm this ratio and how it was achieved. He considers it important to understand because the typical ratio in urban wars, including wars the U.S. has prosecuted, exceeds 6 innocent civilians killed per enemy combatant killed. Some urban wars see 12 innocent civilians killed per combatant killed.

I think all of these ratios are horrifying. A low ratio can't be considered either good or exculpatory, as to whether violations of international humanitarian law have occurred. Civilians always bear a disproportionate impact in all urban wars. The case studies that have been completed are worth reading.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project/urban-warfar...

They hardly need to dump them. Merely not buy as much as they're expected to.

It may have happened during the week of "liberation day" when tariffs were announced, resulting in reduced bill buys.

https://fortune.com/2025/05/11/bond-vigilantes-most-powerful...

The backing disk or file will only be written to if cache eviction on the basis of LRU comes into play, which is fine because that's probably worth the write hit. The likelihood of thrashing, the biggest complaint about disk based swap, is far reduced.

zram based swap isn't free. Its efficiency depends on the compression ratio (and cost).

systems-oomd does this.

The kernel oom killer is concerned with kernel survival, not user space performance.

zswap

https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/mm/zswap.html

The cgroup accounting also now works in zswap.

Yes. No.

Reform is done legally. The statute this falls under requires the fee be based on the administrative cost to process the application.

Changing the statute requires Congress to act.

Flatly illegal. Congress has not authorized imposing such a fee and the current statute would sets the fee based on cost recovery for administrative processing of the application.

This apparently goes into effect in 24 hours. And applies to current H1-B holders. Entry isn't permitted until the $100K is paid.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3l...

The default behavior for handling cards containing images is a read-only mount, and copy all the images without any modifications.

When flash fails it returns garbage or zeros instead of (what was) your data. It can be tranient or persistent. And without any error codes from the storage device or the file system.

If storage returns garbage for filesystem metadata, all bets are off how the OS filesystem driver will behave.

Reformat should be done in camera. And that card used only in that camera. And only that camera gets to write to that card. And don't delete individual images.