What is lacking in the previous one? NTFS support in linux is mostly to read and write files from windows disks, right? I think all the NTFS linux drivers - even the fuse one before the Paragon one - have been alright at that.
Ubuntu switched to the Paragon NTFS driver by default. When I upgraded to kernel 6.5 (I think) from Ubuntu, I started getting frequent kernel panics, like every day. Soon, I noticed that I couldn't even compile a Rust project on an NTFS partition because the compiler was getting random file system errors, and compiling was at high risk of causing a kernel panic. The NTFS driver in that kernel version is just totally broken. I switched to the FUSE NTFS-3G, and then I stopped getting panics and can compile stuff again no problem.
Looking at kernel commits, it looks like the driver may have been fixed since, but I'm scared to use it after it had such major brokenness in that version.
It wound up being OK, but it had a long span of time where it was virtually unmaintained and turned out to be buggy at points. The newer NTFS driver is based off of the old read-only NTFS driver which subjectively many claim is cleaner (I honestly haven't done a head to head so idk) and they're having an easier time modernizing it with support for things like large folios. Seems like a good deal to me.
Personally: I used NTFS3 and it was alright. If anything the biggest thing I got hit by was an issue where the udisks2 mount call from Dolphin would result in NTFS-3g specific flags getting sent to it, causing the mount to fail. But in actual usage it actually worked just fine for me.
>The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans Republicans/the red tribe losing their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a rapidly advancing technology.
What purpose do Vance, Elon, Sacks, Sriram Krishnan and others serve? Are Lutnick and Hegseth calling the shots? It looks like the Valley also got duped.
The valley duped themselves the same way the German industrialists duped themselves by thinking they could control Hitler. Turned out they couldn't and a good number did not survive to 1945.
Those "geniuses" with their "philosophers" (Yarvin, seriously?) think they know everything, but don't even bother to read the most basic relevant history. Theil is already deciding to bundle himself and his family off to Argentina.
Even if things don't end as badly as they did for the Germans, the global economy in general, and America's place in the global economy in particular are already seriously damaged after only one third of this presidential term; even as they are managing to concentrate more wealth, having a bigger slice of a smaller pie is worth less. This really needs to be cleaned up.
Whenever stuff like this happens, the chuds, both inside and outside the WH, start searching for ancient texts that would support their positions. Invariably, there will be the "actually, the INA says ..." crowd in the comments. To these people, I would like to point out laws that have been passed in this century that speak precisely to this issue. The law is appropriately called "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000", for which USCIS maintains this page https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-....
That is completely orthogonal. Whether any non-immigrant visa program should or should not be continued is immaterial. The topic at hand is about adjusting status to permanent residency, for which you need to independently satisfy the criteria for permanent residency. The admin is proposing asking people to go out of the US for their interviews as opposed to an interview in the US. The admin can just as easily deny AOS in the US, but people have more rights in the US and can seek legal recourse. They cannot outside the US.
This sounds quite non-sensical. The statutory pathway is employment based immigrant visas (EB 1 through 5). I don't get why you bring up H-1B into the discussion. If you are looking for congressional intent for this H-1B->EB AOS path, Congress passed AC21 precisely to address this path.
Or perhaps they mean the same thing as was meant by the slogan when it was first coined, around the time of the American Revolution, and the same thing as was meant by the women's suffragists who used it in the late 19th century.
Maybe in some sense "no taxation without suffrage" would be more accurate, but it would be a worse slogan. In any case, "no taxation without representation" is a well known phrase, it's been around for over 250 years, and I don't think much is achieved by nitpicking its wording.
You do have congressional representatives and senators who represent you and your interests and can take action on your behalf just as they would if you were a citizen. I have had decent luck in getting assistance from them despite not being a citizen.
Yes and colonial Americans had personages they didn't choose representing their interests at court so clearly that was not what they meant by it, let alone as members of the British empire their interests were represented by the king the highest position in the land...
To exist is to be taxed. If you exist at all in the US, you will be taxed. You may even be taxed even if you are not in the US. So saying that taxation somehow implies voting ability would be quite absurd. This doesn't hold true anywhere in the world.
When someone says "No taxation without representation!" they don't mean "As a matter of fact, no one ever gets taxed by a government they don't have the power to vote for or against". (If that were true, there'd be no need to demand it.)
They mean "I would like our government to stop taxing people who don't get to vote for it" or "It is unjust for a government to tax people who don't get to vote for it" or something of that sort.
The fact that things aren't already the way you want them to be doesn't make it absurd to demand that they change to be that way.
(You might argument that governments don't give a damn what anyone demands and for that reason it is absurd to demand change. But I think that in fact governments do take notice of what people want, if they fear what the people might do if they don't get it. Whether that's voting them out of office or putting their heads on pikes or anything in between. And they will take more notice if more people are demanding whatever it is, and a large part of the point of saying things like "No taxation without representation!" is to get other people who aren't in the government to sympathize with your cause and maybe start demanding the same thing. So I think it's manifestly not absurd to make such demands, as such. Some particular demands -- "No taxation without $1M/year universal basic income!" -- would be absurd, but this one seems obviously not to be in that category.)
There is a typical ladder here though of non-immigrant/temp visitor, legal permanent resident, and citizen. The main practical distinction bw the last two is the ability to vote and hold office. What concretely is the demand here? That the last two should effectively merge into one? Or is it that everybody along this ladder should get to vote and that citizenship is a separate axis?
The demand is that there shouldn't be anywhere on that ladder where you are expected to pay taxes and aren't given the right to vote.
Is it a sensible demand? I dunno. Some people have thought so. Some other people have thought not. I'm not trying to settle that question; just trying to bring some clarity as to what the issue is.
Not Peter. All your domestic stuff can probably be resolved by a skilled attorney, but travel definitely has risks. You can't do anything if you are denied entry or if your visa renewal is denied. There is virtually no legal recourse.
reply