Ups driver salary

Hi. It’s me. In January I traded my GR86 for an Elantra N. Since them I’ve put about 2500 miles on including one track day, an autocross, and a lot of preschool runs.
Photos and hot lap video https://imgur.com/a/02SffO8 https://streamable.com/m4rvto
Why did I get rid of the GR86? Space. The GR86 can fit two adults and two kids in car seats, however your passenger will be miserable and you’ll have to perform an expert level yoga move each time you put a child in a rear facing convertible car seat. Even just putting my oldest one in her forward facing one is not ideal. Me being me, I started looking and saw that even now in May 2023, these things are still hard to find which mean places are giving top dollar for them.
Why the Elantra N? I realized that this segment is ideal for me. Many people moan about fwd being not fun, but I’ve had just as much fun in fwd as rwd at autocross and on track. This segment gives me fun cars that can do it all, as a dad car DD and something for weekend fun, with mostly no compromises. I went down the list of usual suspects. FL5 CTR: Too expensive. Already had an FK8. Lacking a bit of character. Impossible to find. GRolla: A bit small in the rear for a rear facing car seat. AWD is more of a minus than a plus for me, even though I live in New England. GolfR: A little expensive, too under the radar, too refined. I also considered a DCT F80 M3, but couldn't justify the extra cost, and found it a bit too insulated.
The EN checks all of the right driving boxes for me and even has the option to appease my wife who has always (politely) asked me to get an automatic transmission that she could drive. Until now, I’ve always had a manual. I’m not a die hard 'I must drive everything stick' type person, but I always enjoy driving stick on the street but have said for a while I’d consider a DCT for its telepathic shifting. Of course the one box the EN doesn’t check is the looks. My god the front. I still have no idea what they were thinking (and I don't think the '24 refresh looks much, if any better). As I’ve owned it, it’s grown on me a little. Much like if your friend names their cat or dog something silly, you start to appreciate it as you associate the name with a real thing that takes real pets and belly rubs. I do enjoy the rear light bar, but not the wing that’s crumpled in the middle. I assume this is to aid visibility? And of course the side looks pre-crashed but it can be forgiven.
Interior The interior is good. The Hyundai infotainment is really great. Large, sharp screens for both the gauge cluster and the infotainment. I love how the infotainment screen is slightly angled to the driver. Of course I mostly just use it for carplay but I love the N mode screen. It let’s you make your own custom modes where you can set steering, engine/throttle response, shift speed, suspension, and exhaust. It also has a bunch of customizable settings inside of N mode. Want the DCT to not creep? There’s a setting for that. Want a little kick on upshifts and the trans to really slam home that gear? N power shift will do that for you. Want the DCT to hold revs and know when you’re on a track? N track sense is here for you. Outside of the infotainment the interior is fine. Seats are great, and heated. They light up. Why? ¯_(ツ)_/¯. Some of the plastics are out of a base Elantra, but everything you touch is good, with alcantara on many surfaces. I did have the base GR86, but the EN interior is definitely better in just about every way. And the Hyundai app is wonderful for remote starting with climate control or just quickly and easily unlocking/locking.
One interior-ish quirk, it has no adaptive cruise control. It does have lane keep assist, rear parking sensors, emergency front braking and blind spot monitoring. No ACC is not a huge deal breaker to me as I don’t often go on long highway trips for it, but it would be nice to have.
Driving I like fwd. I like rwd. I’m definitively in the ‘if you hate fwd, you just haven’t driven good fwd at the limit’ camp (sorry). Do I miss leaving T-junctions sideways with rwd? A little. I think the equivalent feeling for fwd is approaching a corner, keeping the revs high, mashing throttle and feel the eLSD just suck you in, like magic. The eLSD is excellent, as is the wet 8 speed dct. It almost always knows which gear you’re going for which means a impressively quick shift. Even if you choose a shift that doesn’t jive, it’s still not slow. Is it as engaging as a manual? Probably not, but the video game-ness of it is fun in its own way. The worst named feature that comes with the DCT is the NGS. Push the button and you get 20 seconds of 25nm more of torque. It’ll also put your exhaust into the state of CA’s favorite Sport+ mode with all of the pops and bangs you could ever want, and if you have the transmission in automatic, it’ll downshift you to the highest gear. The suspension is adjustable, which in partnership with the DCT, helps make the car go from appliance car (in eco mode) to a true fun daily/something that's ready for the track. Suspension in my opinion is soft enough on it's softest setting and just about stiff enough in the stiffest setting. Sticky stock PS4S help the quick turn in, but even with the all-season DWS 06 that I put on for some light winter duty, handling remains good. Power is plenty. I don't think it feels much slower than the CTR when using the NGS feature.
The dealer experience
I’ve bought quite a few cars and this dealership experience was the best. I feel like I read nothing but bad things about Hyundai but was genuinely impressed. The dealership wasn’t that far away, but everything was done via email/electronically. Everything was as smooth as possible, super easy transaction from start to finish.
On track
I did add some light mods, camber bolts (with an alignment bumping the already good front camber from -1.7 -> -2.5 in the front) and 18x9 wheels (from 19x8) and 245/40/18 Kumho V730 tires. Car comes with genuinely track capable brakes and factory filled with DOT4. Car was terrific at my local track, Thompson for an SCCA Track Night in America event. Oil gets a little warm, like just about any turbo 4, but factory gauges are great and coolant temp stays reasonable. DCT really comes to life on track where it feels like you’re shifting in a video game. Car was about 1.5s faster than my GR86, which was on a stickier tire (Falken RT660). I can’t wait to track it more.
What’s next? Nothing for a while. Going to feed it fluids, brakes and tires and enjoy it. I would honestly still have the CTR if the market weren’t so wild. Which is better? At least for the FK8, I prefer the EN in most ways. The main difference between the two is character. The FK8 does everything well but without fan fare or drama. Exactly the opposite of its boy racer looks. It’s like Honda set out to build the best hot hatch but forgot that being the best doesn’t necessarily make it the most fun. The EN is brimming with character. It has torque steer, the exhaust can make hilariously loud pops and bangs (and only if you want it to), and the seats light up. Hyundai knew that people want fun. Of course the Honda will have better resale value and potentially be more reliable but the EN makes me feel more, which is kind of why we buy these things.
Cons and quirks Only two front cup holders. Front door pocket bottle holders only hold small bottles/could be more usable. No rear climate vents, sorry kids. No adaptive cruise Rear strut bar limits pass through trunk storage but it is fairly easily removable.
Happy to answer any and all questions about the car.

So I’m looking at buying a car ranked from dream car to “settling” as followed:
1.) 2023 Supra 3.0 Manual - $55K MSRP
2.) 2023 Nissan Z Sport Manual - $41K MSRP
3.) GR Corolla Core - $36K MSRP
This would be replacing an FT86. Daily driver, no track days, never really plan on having kids. GR86 isn’t up there because I figured I’d want some more utility if I’m paying that much.
I understand that it’s hard to find these cars for near MSRP. But I’m willing to be patient. I’m having a hard time figuring out what I want because with all these trims I end up upselling myself…
My thoughts so far: GR Corolla seems a little over priced even at MSRP. But it’s some I can comfortably afford for sure. Supra 3.0 would be stretching the budget just a bit. Not sure how reliable the Z would be but it is in my budget. Essentially I want a sports car I can daily for as long as possible.
Any thoughts would be great!

Moving from eastern to western Canada in a couple weeks, I’ll be cutting through the states for part of the drive just wondering if there’s anything I may have overlooked in my planning.
I’ll have my dog and my cat with me -have their vax records -have drugs from the vet for the cat
Taking my girlfriends car -all registration is up to date -she is going to get a notarized letter saying I can take it -recently got car serviced
The plan is to pick up my friend in Montreal then rotate drivers to do it in as close to one go as we can
Let me know if I’m missing or overlooked anything!
Thanks in advance

A bumpy car ride makes me feel like im having a heart attack. Actually I'm a mess of health issues, i need a super easy to press pedal for my ankle/knee, easy steering wheel as well. I often switch the foot im driving with due to pain. Good posture seat is a must, i have bad circulation, the comfier the better. For my current car i sit on blankets on my seat to make the bottom softer.
LF a sedan, mostly just for daily driver for myself. I don't drive far because i cant handle it currently. Budget 30k ~ish. Money saved is money i can use to improve my life elsewhere. Of course low cost of ownership is important.
​
Ive test driven a used mazda 6 touring and lexus es 350, both were pretty decent choices. I want to consider the hybrid es but the prices for it used are ridiculous around here. I was planning on picking up a used (90k mile, 2017) es 350 for $22,000 before fees/taxes. (i really like the backup camera, parking sensors, and the adaptive cruise control sounds helpful). Thoughts/suggestions? Thanks!

I'm trying to salave my rig which I think overheated a week or so ago, it keeps blue screening with UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP, checked drivers updated GPU drive everything else is up to date or hadn't had an update. Found a corrupt driver for the USB, installed new driver to resolve that. Now I'm getting, as well as a driver for the GPU that came out four days ago IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL
ran a memory test and that passed with no issues detected.
Specs: Windows 10 RTX 3080 Asus z170-a I7-6700k 16Gb ram

I would workout much more, be on a better diet, gotta get gains. Currently 5'11 about 70kilos little bit of muscle but very little fat, don't know exact stats, PR for pull ups is currently 14. I'd wanna come out of it at 80 kilos and a PR of at least 30.
Then the money making side hustles, i would dropship, trade stocks and crypto, hustlers university and all that stuff. Gonna try my best to make myself a rich man anyway but another lockdown would be a great opportunity for it.
Then the fuel prices, they were so damn cheap! And the roads being empty and less police officers patrolling, i could safely ride my 125cc bike with much less fear of cops stopping me or bad drivers. Would also give me a chance to take the bike on motorways, cause the only vehicles on there will be slow ass lorries that cap out at 65 whereas i have a whopping max speed of 83 lmao. Would also be a great chance to organise rides/drives with friends, cause we'd all have the time and we'd have a bunch of fun doing that shit. At the same time it would also be a great opportunity for me to work on the bike to get every little thing fixed up and learn the mechanics of it.
TLDR: I'd be going into the lockdown broke, not at peak physique, could learn mechanics better and coming out of lockdown jacked as fuck, richer than my own parents, whilst breaking traffic laws with friends and I'll be fixing up all my friends bikes and cars because i can and I try to be a good friend:)
Please share what you would do!

I am running the following docker compose but I am getting issues with the setup where it throws up errors.
Error: Version: '10.6.13-MariaDB-1:10.6.13+maria\~ubu2004' socket: '/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' port: 3306 mariadb.org binary distribution2-db-1 2023-05-28 22:00:54 4 \[Warning\] Aborted connection 4 to db: 'unconnected' user: 'unauthenticated' host: '172.18.0.6' (This connection closed normally without authentication)
Docker Compose: ```

version: "3"

services:
backend:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
configurator:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: none
entrypoint:
- bash
- -c
command:
- >
ls -1 apps > sites/apps.txt;
bench set-config -g db_host $$DB_HOST;
bench set-config -gp db_port $$DB_PORT;
bench set-config -g redis_cache "redis://$$REDIS_CACHE";
bench set-config -g redis_queue "redis://$$REDIS_QUEUE";
bench set-config -g redis_socketio "redis://$$REDIS_SOCKETIO";
bench set-config -gp socketio_port $$SOCKETIO_PORT;
environment:
DB_HOST: db
DB_PORT: "3306"
REDIS_CACHE: redis-cache:6379
REDIS_QUEUE: redis-queue:6379
REDIS_SOCKETIO: redis-socketio:6379
SOCKETIO_PORT: "9000"
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
create-site:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: none
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
entrypoint:
- bash
- -c
command:
- >
wait-for-it -t 120 db:3306;
wait-for-it -t 120 redis-cache:6379;
wait-for-it -t 120 redis-queue:6379;
wait-for-it -t 120 redis-socketio:6379;
export start=`date +%s`;
until [[ -n `grep -hs ^ sites/common_site_config.json jq -r ".db_host // empty"` ]] && \
[[ -n `grep -hs ^ sites/common_site_config.json jq -r ".redis_cache // empty"` ]] && \
[[ -n `grep -hs ^ sites/common_site_config.json jq -r ".redis_queue // empty"` ]];
do
echo "Waiting for sites/common_site_config.json to be created";
sleep 5;
if (( `date +%s`-start > 120 )); then
echo "could not find sites/common_site_config.json with required keys";
exit 1
fi
done;
echo "sites/common_site_config.json found";
bench new-site frontend --no-mariadb-socket --admin-password=admin --db-root-password=admin --install-app erpnext --set-default;
networks:
- erpnext
db:
image: mariadb:latest
healthcheck:
test: mysqladmin ping -h localhost --password=admin
interval: 1s
retries: 15
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- --character-set-server=utf8mb4
- --collation-server=utf8mb4_unicode_ci
- --skip-character-set-client-handshake
- --skip-innodb-read-only-compressed # Temporary fix for MariaDB 10.6
environment:
MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD: admin
volumes:
- db-data:/valib/mysql
networks:
- erpnext
frontend:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- nginx-entrypoint.sh
environment:
BACKEND: backend:8000
FRAPPE_SITE_NAME_HEADER: frontend
SOCKETIO: websocket:9000
UPSTREAM_REAL_IP_ADDRESS: 127.0.0.1
UPSTREAM_REAL_IP_HEADER: X-Forwarded-For
UPSTREAM_REAL_IP_RECURSIVE: "off"
PROXY_READ_TIMOUT: 120
CLIENT_MAX_BODY_SIZE: 50m
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
- nginx
queue-default:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- bench
- worker
- --queue
- default
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
queue-long:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- bench
- worker
- --queue
- long
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
queue-short:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- bench
- worker
- --queue
- short
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
redis-queue:
image: redis:6.2-alpine
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
volumes:
- redis-queue-data:/data
networks:
- erpnext
redis-cache:
image: redis:6.2-alpine
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
volumes:
- redis-cache-data:/data
networks:
- erpnext
redis-socketio:
image: redis:6.2-alpine
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
volumes:
- redis-socketio-data:/data
networks:
- erpnext
scheduler:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- bench
- schedule
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
websocket:
image: frappe/erpnext:v14
deploy:
restart_policy:
condition: on-failure
command:
- node
- /home/frappe/frappe-bench/apps/frappe/socketio.js
volumes:
- sites:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/sites
- logs:/home/frappe/frappe-bench/logs
networks:
- erpnext
volumes:
db-data:
redis-queue-data:
redis-cache-data:
redis-socketio-data:
sites:
driver: local
driver_opts:
type: none
o: bind
device: /vacontainesites
logs:
driver: local
driver_opts:
type: none
o: bind
device: /vacontainelogs
networks:
nginx:
external: true
erpnext:
external: true ```
Log: ```

1-redis-queue-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:20.244 # oO0OoO0OoO0Oo Redis is starting oO0OoO0OoO0Oo

1-redis-queue-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:20.244 # Redis version=6.2.12, bits=64, commit=00000000, modified=0, pid=1, just started
1-redis-queue-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:20.244 # Warning: no config file specified, using the default config. In order to specify a config file use redis-server /path/to/redis.conf
1-redis-queue-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.244 * monotonic clock: POSIX clock_gettime
1-redis-queue-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.245 * Running mode=standalone, port=6379.
1-redis-queue-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.245 # Server initialized
1-redis-queue-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.245 # WARNING Memory overcommit must be enabled! Without it, a background save or replication may fail under low memory condition. Being disabled, it can can also cause failures without low memory condition, see https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/issues/1328. To fix this issue add 'vm.overcommit_memory = 1' to /etc/sysctl.conf and then reboot or run the command 'sysctl vm.overcommit_memory=1' for this to take effect.
1-redis-queue-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.245 * Ready to accept connections
1-redis-cache-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:20.347 # oO0OoO0OoO0Oo Redis is starting oO0OoO0OoO0Oo
1-redis-cache-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:20.348 # Redis version=6.2.12, bits=64, commit=00000000, modified=0, pid=1, just started
1-redis-cache-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:20.348 # Warning: no config file specified, using the default config. In order to specify a config file use redis-server /path/to/redis.conf
1-redis-cache-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.348 * monotonic clock: POSIX clock_gettime
1-redis-cache-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.348 * Running mode=standalone, port=6379.
1-redis-cache-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.348 # Server initialized
1-redis-cache-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.348 # WARNING Memory overcommit must be enabled! Without it, a background save or replication may fail under low memory condition. Being disabled, it can can also cause failures without low memory condition, see https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/issues/1328. To fix this issue add 'vm.overcommit_memory = 1' to /etc/sysctl.conf and then reboot or run the command 'sysctl vm.overcommit_memory=1' for this to take effect.
1-redis-cache-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:20.349 * Ready to accept connections
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:20+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Entrypoint script for MariaDB Server 1:10.11.3+maria~ubu2204 started.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:20+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Switching to dedicated user 'mysql'
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:20+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Entrypoint script for MariaDB Server 1:10.11.3+maria~ubu2204 started.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:20+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Initializing database files
1-redis-socketio-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:21.079 # oO0OoO0OoO0Oo Redis is starting oO0OoO0OoO0Oo
1-redis-socketio-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:21.079 # Redis version=6.2.12, bits=64, commit=00000000, modified=0, pid=1, just started
1-redis-socketio-1 1:C 28 May 2023 23:22:21.079 # Warning: no config file specified, using the default config. In order to specify a config file use redis-server /path/to/redis.conf
1-redis-socketio-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:21.080 * monotonic clock: POSIX clock_gettime
1-redis-socketio-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:21.080 * Running mode=standalone, port=6379.
1-redis-socketio-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:21.080 # Server initialized
1-redis-socketio-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:21.080 # WARNING Memory overcommit must be enabled! Without it, a background save or replication may fail under low memory condition. Being disabled, it can can also cause failures without low memory condition, see https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/issues/1328. To fix this issue add 'vm.overcommit_memory = 1' to /etc/sysctl.conf and then reboot or run the command 'sysctl vm.overcommit_memory=1' for this to take effect.
1-redis-socketio-1 1:M 28 May 2023 23:22:21.081 * Ready to accept connections
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: waiting 120 seconds for db:3306
1-queue-long-1 2023-05-28 23:22:21,460 Worker rq:worker:6fd7cc0da35f4349b30d1e92691f3604.eab2a72870a4.1.home-frappe-frappe-bench:long: started, version 1.11.1
1-queue-long-1 2023-05-28 23:22:21,460 Subscribing to channel rq:pubsub:6fd7cc0da35f4349b30d1e92691f3604.eab2a72870a4.1.home-frappe-frappe-bench:long
1-queue-long-1 2023-05-28 23:22:21,483 *** Listening on home-frappe-frappe-bench:long...
1-queue-long-1 2023-05-28 23:22:21,483 Cleaning registries for queue: home-frappe-frappe-bench:long
1-frontend-1 PROXY_READ_TIMEOUT defaulting to 120
1-backend-1 [2023-05-28 23:22:22 +0000] [1] [INFO] Starting gunicorn 20.1.0
1-backend-1 [2023-05-28 23:22:22 +0000] [1] [INFO] Listening at: http://0.0.0.0:8000 (1)
1-backend-1 [2023-05-28 23:22:22 +0000] [1] [INFO] Using worker: gthread
1-backend-1 [2023-05-28 23:22:22 +0000] [7] [INFO] Booting worker with pid: 7
1-queue-default-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,020 Worker rq:worker:3d9c3e4bdabe4eb0b0912d22b2f553eb.71172abda72c.1.home-frappe-frappe-bench:default: started, version 1.11.1
1-queue-default-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,020 Subscribing to channel rq:pubsub:3d9c3e4bdabe4eb0b0912d22b2f553eb.71172abda72c.1.home-frappe-frappe-bench:default
1-queue-default-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,023 *** Listening on home-frappe-frappe-bench:default...
1-queue-default-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,024 Cleaning registries for queue: home-frappe-frappe-bench:default
1-backend-1 [2023-05-28 23:22:22 +0000] [8] [INFO] Booting worker with pid: 8
1-queue-short-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,475 Worker rq:worker:4fe42c3b1e7a4ae496c4b6d67afc5f74.3bcdcb3afc53.1.home-frappe-frappe-bench:short: started, version 1.11.1
1-queue-short-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,476 Subscribing to channel rq:pubsub:4fe42c3b1e7a4ae496c4b6d67afc5f74.3bcdcb3afc53.1.home-frappe-frappe-bench:short
1-queue-short-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,477 *** Listening on home-frappe-frappe-bench:short...
1-queue-short-1 2023-05-28 23:22:22,478 Cleaning registries for queue: home-frappe-frappe-bench:short
1-db-1
1-db-1
1-db-1 PLEASE REMEMBER TO SET A PASSWORD FOR THE MariaDB root USER !
1-db-1 To do so, start the server, then issue the following command:
1-db-1
1-db-1 '/usbin/mariadb-secure-installation'
1-db-1
1-db-1 which will also give you the option of removing the test
1-db-1 databases and anonymous user created by default. This is
1-db-1 strongly recommended for production servers.
1-db-1
1-db-1 See the MariaDB Knowledgebase at https://mariadb.com/kb
1-db-1
1-db-1 Please report any problems at https://mariadb.org/jira
1-db-1
1-db-1 The latest information about MariaDB is available at https://mariadb.org/.
1-db-1
1-db-1 Consider joining MariaDB's strong and vibrant community:
1-db-1 https://mariadb.org/get-involved/
1-db-1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Database files initialized
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Starting temporary server
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Waiting for server startup
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] Starting MariaDB 10.11.3-MariaDB-1:10.11.3+maria~ubu2204 source revision 0bb31039f54bd6a0dc8f0fc7d40e6b58a51998b0 as process 118
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Compressed tables use zlib 1.2.11
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Number of transaction pools: 1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Using crc32 + pclmulqdq instructions
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] mariadbd: O_TMPFILE is not supported on /tmp (disabling future attempts)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Using liburing
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Initializing buffer pool, total size = 128.000MiB, chunk size = 2.000MiB
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Completed initialization of buffer pool
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: File system buffers for log disabled (block size=512 bytes)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: 128 rollback segments are active.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: Setting file './ibtmp1' size to 12.000MiB. Physically writing the file full; Please wait ...
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: File './ibtmp1' size is now 12.000MiB.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] InnoDB: log sequence number 46590; transaction id 14
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] Plugin 'FEEDBACK' is disabled.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Warning] 'user' entry '[email protected]' ignored in --skip-name-resolve mode.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Warning] 'proxies_priv' entry '@% [email protected]' ignored in --skip-name-resolve mode.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 0 [Note] mariadbd: ready for connections.
1-db-1 Version: '10.11.3-MariaDB-1:10.11.3+maria~ubu2204' socket: '/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' port: 0 mariadb.org binary distribution
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:23 3 [Warning] Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: YES)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:24+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Temporary server started.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:24 6 [Warning] Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: YES)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:25 7 [Warning] Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: YES)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Securing system users (equivalent to running mysql_secure_installation)
1-db-1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Stopping temporary server
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] mariadbd (initiated by: unknown): Normal shutdown
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: FTS optimize thread exiting.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Starting shutdown...
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Dumping buffer pool(s) to /valib/mysql/ib_buffer_pool
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Buffer pool(s) dump completed at 230528 23:22:26
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Removed temporary tablespace data file: "./ibtmp1"
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Shutdown completed; log sequence number 46590; transaction id 15
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] mariadbd: Shutdown complete
1-db-1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: Temporary server stopped
1-db-1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26+00:00 [Note] [Entrypoint]: MariaDB init process done. Ready for start up.
1-db-1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] Starting MariaDB 10.11.3-MariaDB-1:10.11.3+maria~ubu2204 source revision 0bb31039f54bd6a0dc8f0fc7d40e6b58a51998b0 as process 11-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Compressed tables use zlib 1.2.11
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Number of transaction pools: 1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Using crc32 + pclmulqdq instructions
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] mariadbd: O_TMPFILE is not supported on /tmp (disabling future attempts)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Using liburing
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Initializing buffer pool, total size = 128.000MiB, chunk size = 2.000MiB
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Completed initialization of buffer pool
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: File system buffers for log disabled (block size=512 bytes)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: 128 rollback segments are active.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Setting file './ibtmp1' size to 12.000MiB. Physically writing the file full; Please wait ...
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: File './ibtmp1' size is now 12.000MiB.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: log sequence number 46590; transaction id 14
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Loading buffer pool(s) from /valib/mysql/ib_buffer_pool
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] Plugin 'FEEDBACK' is disabled.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Warning] You need to use --log-bin to make --expire-logs-days or --binlog-expire-logs-seconds work.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] Server socket created on IP: '0.0.0.0'.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] Server socket created on IP: '::'.
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] InnoDB: Buffer pool(s) load completed at 230528 23:22:26
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:26 0 [Note] mariadbd: ready for connections.
1-db-1 Version: '10.11.3-MariaDB-1:10.11.3+maria~ubu2204' socket: '/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' port: 3306 mariadb.org binary distribution
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:22:27 3 [Warning] Aborted connection 3 to db: 'unconnected' user: 'unauthenticated' host: '172.18.0.13' (This connection closed normally without authentication)
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: db:3306 is available after 6 seconds
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: waiting 120 seconds for redis-cache:6379
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: redis-cache:6379 is available after 0 seconds
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: waiting 120 seconds for redis-queue:6379
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: redis-queue:6379 is available after 0 seconds
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: waiting 120 seconds for redis-socketio:6379
1-create-site-1 wait-for-it: redis-socketio:6379 is available after 0 seconds
1-create-site-1 sites/common_site_config.json found
1-configurator-1 exited with code 0
1-create-site-1 Site frontend already exists
1-create-site-1 exited with code 1
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:23:22 54 [Warning] Access denied for user '_5e5899d8398b5f7b'@'172.18.0.10' (using password: YES)
1-db-1 2023-05-28 23:24:22 108 [Warning] Access denied for user '_5e5899d8398b5f7b'@'172.18.0.10' (using password: YES) ``` ​
What am I doing wrong?

Hello everyone, i need help.
While Covid's, i builded a desktop pc to try crypto and work with zoom. I didn't really continue mining ( but ended using the computer for mostly work and research.
Motherboard : Biostar BTC 250 Pro
GPU : AsRock rx580 Phantom Gaming
CPU : I7-7700k (just changed last week to try to avoid bottleneck, the thing was running on celeron)
PSU : 1050w
Screen : Budget screen.
So, i ended pluging the GPU on a 1x to 16x riser connector. I can work, but i would like to play sometimes, and have once in my life, the change to enjoy nice graphics. So i want to make the 16x slot work.
I spent days looking in forum to understand what it could be, but when i plug directly the GPU on the 16x port, everything boot i guess (i came to know very well my fan speed sound when win 10 boot), i can, i think, even access inside my win session "blind", but no signal on the screen. Every advice would be much much appreciated. I will edit this post accordinly for everyone input and follow up !
​
So far i think the problem is at the bios level
​
BIOS
- i tried to switch the port to gen 1, 2, 3, auto change nothing
- i tried to disable other 1x ports change nothing
- activated or stopped the mining mode change nothing
- set primary display on PEX, then PCI, then IGFx... change nothing
- i have only one HDD on sata (maybe it takes one of the Pci lane so could use 16x ?)
​
OS
- windows, driver, all fresh
Thank you very much for your time.

So with the news of Intel Arc working on 9.2, I got an A380. However, Plex doesn't detect it, and it doesn't seem to show up under /dev/dri. The intel-media-driver package is installed from rpmfusion. It does output to a monitor if hooked up. lspci does detect it, and the output of sudo lspci -v -s $(lspci grep VGA cut -d" " -f 1) is the following:

0c:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation DG2 [Arc A380] (rev 05) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller]) Subsystem: ASRock Incorporation Device 6004 Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IOMMU group 15 Memory at fb000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16M] Memory at fc00000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=8G] Expansion ROM at fc000000 [disabled] [size=2M] Capabilities: [40] Vendor Specific Information: Len=0c  Capabilities: [70] Express Endpoint, MSI 00 Capabilities: [ac] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable+ 64bit+ Capabilities: [d0] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [100] Alternative Routing-ID Interpretation (ARI) Capabilities: [420] Physical Resizable BAR Capabilities: [400] Latency Tolerance Reporting Kernel modules: i915 

Kernel version is 5.14.0-284.11.1.el9_2.x86_64. Previously, I had a Quadro P400 in here, and I removed the nvidia drivers using the guide on rpmfusion's page, so it doesn't seem to be any lingering problems with nvidia's driver. The CPU is a Ryzen 3900X and the motherboard is a Gigabyte B450M DS3H, so I don't think it's any resizable BAR issues.
Any thoughts on where I could be going wrong?

I sent a ticket to Ubisoft as well, no response and this seems to be a somewhat well known issue since the BMX update. My girlfriend has an older i7, the game ran absolutely perfectly up until this update, since then she has been unable to play. When joining the game (zen mode included) her character will briefly render then a quick screen tear and freaky movement with her character model, then freeze. The game must be closed via task manager. The menu works fine.
ISP is Xfinity 200mpbs down, ~20 up, around 15-25 ms connection cat6 cable, every other game works perfect. All ports currently open for sake of troubleshooting.
Have ran any and all combinations of graphics and display settings, PC and Nvidia drivers fully updated, no external applications running that would conflict. Obviously many reboots, reinstalled game to SSD drive, verified integrity etc. No dice.
Anyone figure out how to get around this? When if ever will Ubisoft fix this problem that alienates so many from playing their game?

I am considering filing a lawsuit I wrote. Do you think this has merit?
The Plaintiff is the proprietor of two businesses, namely [*], which is an electronic repair service, and [], an online retail business. Both of these businesses have a physical presence in [***].
In early 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented economic disruptions globally. Both of Plaintiff’s businesses, [*] and [*], were heavily impacted by these disruptions and faced severe financial setbacks.
Given the distressing circumstances, the Plaintiff, in his capacity as a small business owner, applied for two separate EIDL loans under the provisions of the CARES Act in order to offset the economic hardships caused by the pandemic. It is important to note that the Small Business Administration (SBA) is responsible for the implementation and administration of these provisions.
On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff received a notification from the SBA, stating that the EIDL application for [****] had been approved. This approval entailed an Advance Grant amounting to $1,000.00 and an EIDL loan amounting to $1,500.00.
On June 16, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the SBA by signing the Loan Authorization and Agreement (LA&A) contract. Subsequently, on June 18, 2020, the SBA transferred the EIDL loan amount of $1,500 into the Plaintiff's personal bank account.
On June 25, 2020, the SBA initiated the transfer of the Advance Grant of $1,000.00 to the Plaintiff's personal bank account. However, this transfer was not successful and was returned to the SBA by the bank.
On June 26, 2020, the Plaintiff was informed via an email from his bank that the deposit of $1,000.00 made by the SBA had been returned to the depositor. The bank attributed this reversal to a discrepancy between the name on the deposit and the name registered on the bank account. This happened despite the successful deposit of the EIDL loan amount on June 18, 2020, indicating an error from the SBA's end as no changes were made to the account details by the Plaintiff. Over the course of the two years, the Plaintiff repeatedly reached out to the SBA for a resolution to this problem, but his pleas fell on deaf ears.
Contrary to the treatment of the application of [*], the EIDL application for [*] was denied by the SBA. Plaintiff received the denial notification on July 6, 2020, Plaintiff received an email From the SBA which contained a decline letter which stated, "Unfortunately, although we have made every effort to approve your loan request, we are unable to offer you a Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) for the reason(s) described below. Not Eligible: The SBA has been unable to verify the existence of an eligible business as reflected in the application. The SBA has been unsuccessful in our attempts to obtain documentation from multiple sources (public records) and we attempted to obtain documentation from you that would validate the existence of your business." Plaintiff disputes the SBA's claim to have "attempted to obtain documentation" from the plaintiff. The only time the SBA had reached out prior to the decline letter was On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff received a voicemail from the SBA asking Plaintiff to select a loan amount and submit for final approval.
On July 21, 2020, the plaintiff initiated contact with the SBA regarding the returned grant and the declined EIDL appliction. In a conversation with SBA Disaster Customer Service Representative Rossana M. Nuno, she explained her inability to provide case-specific advice or information. Instead, she could only offer general information about the program. The Plaintiff was informed that due to the depletion of funds, the Advance program had been terminated on July 13, 2020. The money that had initially been allocated to the Plaintiff for the Advanced Grant was no longer available. Plaintiff contended that this was a failure on the part of the SBA, that they had made a mistake sending the deposit and that it was their fiduciary duty to correct it. Nuno promise to make a note of it and notify her supervisors of the issue. The plaintiff managed to update their bank account details during this conversation in hopes that further errors would be avoided, and Nuno instructed the plaintiff to reach out to the Reconsideration Department for inquiries about the declined application and potential adjustments to the existing loan agreement At this stage, the plaintiff emphasized to Nuno that the applications were for separate business entities. Further she emailed the reconsideration instructions to both business entities.
On October 6, 2020, the plaintiff sent the first request for reconsideration letter to the SBA, attaching the documents as instructed by Nuno. The letter detailed the plaintiff's newness to business operations, the mistakes they'd made in financial and bookkeeping aspects, and the rectification of these errors. It also declared the filing of an Amended Tax Return for the years 2018 & 2019, which was still being processed by the IRS. The plaintiff included various supporting documents, including Business Bank information, State Identification, Driver's license, Social Security Card, Business registration with the Oregon Secretary of State, and IRS Form SS-4 assigning the business an EIN.
The SBA began a cycle of communication with the plaintiff from October 13, 2020, often requesting documents already submitted or requiring additional ones. Despite providing the necessary paperwork such as tax returns, Form 4506-T, and proof of identity, the SBA seemed to overlook the prior submissions and requested them repeatedly. This pattern continued until late December 2020, leading to significant frustration on the plaintiff's part.
On November 8, 2020, and several subsequent dates, the plaintiff sought to inquire about the status of their applications. However, these efforts yielded no responses from the SBA.
On January 7, 2021, the SBA responded with concerns about perceived discrepancies between the two applications, including different financials, number of employees, and Employer Identification Numbers (EINs), and the reported revenue. The plaintiff clarified that the applications were for two separate business entities with distinct financials, employees, and EINs. The plaintiff speculated that the SBA might have been misled by the similarity in trade names of the two businesses.
The plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the SBA's treatment escalated by March 2021. They composed a detailed letter of appeal on March 25, 2021, where they voiced their struggles, highlighted the separateness of the two businesses, and expressed their irritation with the SBA's repetitive requests for already provided documents. This letter also contained a plea for the SBA to take their case more seriously and to expedite the application process.
In a disappointing development on March 28, 2021, the SBA sent another email requesting more documentation. Many of the requested items were documents that the plaintiff had submitted multiple times in the past. Feeling helpless and dissatisfied with the SBA's handling of their case, the plaintiff turned to the office of U.S. Congress Member Kurt Schrader. They submitted a comprehensive summary of their ordeal, detailing the SBA's apparent disregard of their explanations, the repeated requests for documents, and their overall grievances with the SBA's treatment of their businesses.
On March 29, 2021, the plaintiff received an email from Alvin Klausen, a Field Representative from the Office of Congressman Kurt Schrader. In his email, Klausen requested further clarification on the issues at hand and asked for supporting documents to bolster the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff also received a somewhat reassuring email from Vanessa R., an SBA Customer Service Center Representative, acknowledging receipt of the plaintiff's documentation. She stated, "We have notated the file with the information provided. We forwarded your email and attachment(s) to our Processing and Disbursement Center for review and file association." Even so, the SBA continued to ask for documentation that they had already received.
Two days later, on March 31, 2021, the plaintiff sent another email to Alvin Klausen, this time detailing their grievances against the SBA. The email was a passionate plea for recognition and change, highlighting several key issues. These included perceived discrimination by the SBA against the smallest businesses, a 'delay and deny' tactic used by the SBA, and repeated requests for duplicate information that were both tiresome and confusing. The plaintiff also questioned the SBA's ability to manage information and records effectively, attributing their struggles to the organization's mismanagement. They expressed a desire for accountability and reform, making it clear that while they wanted their personal issues addressed, they also hoped for broader changes within the SBA to benefit all small businesses.
On April 3, 2021, the plaintiff was taken aback by an email from the SBA, which stated, "We have received multiple applications from your business for economic injury as a result of Coronavirus (COVID-19). Your earliest application will continue to be processed, and we have withdrawn application number *****1116 from active consideration." The plaintiff felt this statement was fundamentally incorrect, as they had applied for two distinct businesses, each with separate financials, employees, and EINs. They reiterated that both businesses were in operation before January 1st, 2020, and both had suffered economic injury due to Covid-19. The plaintiff insisted that according to the CARES Act, both applications were valid and deserving of consideration.
A promising development occurred on April 7, 2021, when the plaintiff received an email from Alvin Klausen, stating that a Congressional inquiry had been submitted on their behalf. This offered a glimmer of hope, indicating that their struggle was gaining attention at higher levels and might lead to some resolution.
On April 13, 2021, a communication came from the Small Business Administration (SBA) Loan Officer, Ayesha Babar. She requested additional supporting documents for the plaintiff's application, explicitly mentioning the application number *****0742. The language in the email underscored the urgent necessity for the plaintiff to complete a particular form, with a clear warning: failure to provide the requested Form 4506-T within a week could lead to denial of the plaintiff's aid request. This gave rise to questions about the SBA's policies, especially whether this time-constrained requirement was a standard SBA policy or the discretion of an individual loan officer.
Just a day later, on April 14, 2021, another email from Babar arrived. It sought further information to move forward with the loan modification process and, importantly, put forth a request for immediate communication, either via a phone call or an email response. The email contained an explicit timeline: a response was needed within two days, or else the plaintiff's request could be labeled as 'not interested'.
These interactions highlight the SBA's conduct, characterized by an exigency that seemed to border on the arbitrary, as per the plaintiff's perspective. From a seven-day deadline for document submission to a two-day ultimatum for a call-back, the SBA's approach was perceived as a high-pressure tactic. This conduct raised serious questions about the equitable treatment of loan applicants and the management of relief funds intended to support small businesses during the pandemic.
On April 15, 2021, the plaintiff was contacted via email by Anna Rose, an SBA Loan Specialist, who was appointed as an advocate for the plaintiff's case. Rose expressed her intention to address the plaintiff's increase request and suggested a direct phone conversation for further clarification on the outstanding issues.
A telephonic conversation between the plaintiff and Rose took place the same day, during which the plaintiff articulated the hurdles encountered in the reconsideration process. Rose admitted she hadn't previously reviewed the plaintiff's provided documentation or any prior emails related to the case, though she was aware of the congressional inquiry initiated on the plaintiff's behalf.
Throughout the discussion, the plaintiff reiterated multiple points, clarified the nature of their "Qualified Joint Venture" tax status as opposed to a 1065 Partnership, highlighted the separation of business entities, and raised several issues previously discussed with the SBA. The issue of the missing Advance Grant portion was frequently brought up by the plaintiff. Although Rose acknowledged this concern, she clarified her lack of involvement in the advance program and asked the plaintiff to be patient.
Rose, in her capacity as advocate, took on an advisory role, guiding the plaintiff through the process, and requesting various supporting documents, including the original 2019 Federal Tax Return, SBA Form 2202 Schedule of Liabilities, IRS Tax Form 4506-T, and a Partnership Agreement. The SBA appeared to be in a thorough review phase, trying to ensure that all the necessary documentation was in order.
A significant aspect of these interactions was the decision to request an updated 2019 Tax Transcript from the IRS. Rose, on April 20, 2021, indicated that the utilization of the amended tax return figures (as opposed to the original ones) could lead to a larger loan amount for the plaintiff. However, this move, framed by Rose as the goal, was made without explicitly providing the plaintiff an opportunity to make an informed decision or explaining the implications of such a request. It was clear that the objective of leveraging the amended tax return for a higher loan amount was initiated by the SBA, specifically Rose, and not the plaintiff. This suggests an attempt by the SBA to maximize the available support for the plaintiff, albeit with a lack of transparency in communicating the possible consequences and constraints.
As the discussions between the plaintiff and SBA Loan Specialist Anna Rose progressed in April and May 2021, the focus remained on the plaintiff's amended tax return and the corresponding IRS transcripts, pivotal elements in the loan reconsideration process. In these communications, Anna Rose called for the submission of multiple forms, including IRS Form 4506-T.
A crucial point arose on May 6th, 2021 when Rose falsely reported to the Plaintiff that the IRS hadn't processed the plaintiff's amended tax return. This assertion was in direct contradiction to the plaintiff's records showing the return's adjustment, finalization, and subsequent payment.
Furthermore, when the SBA received Plaintiffs tax transcripts on April 23, 2021, and May 3, 2021, they both showed that the tax return had been processed. This fact was withheld by the SBA and kept from the Plaintiff. It would only be revealed in the Freedom of Information Act Request that Plaintiff acquired in 2022.
Rose then suggested that the plaintiff wait for the processing of the amended tax return before incorporating the amended gross revenue numbers. Plaintiff is told by Rose, "you can wait a couple of months until the amended tax return has been processed. This is the only way we will be able to go off of the AMENDED gross revenue." Plaintiff is told this despite having satisfied the requirements as stated by Rose on April 20, 2021, "This transcript should show that an AMENDED RETURN was filed. That's all the information that I need in order to use your AMENDED Tax Return figures."
Most notably, Rose informed the plaintiff of a policy that limits the resubmission of Form 4506-T to every 60 days or a couple of months. However, neither the SBA nor the IRS has an established policy restricting the submission of Form 4506-T to every 60 days. This alleged policy seems inconsistent with the Covid Relief Acts' guidelines and raises questions about its applicability and fairness. As a result, the invocation of this policy by Rose marks a significant point of contention in the loan modification process with the SBA.
On May 7, 2021, the plaintiff forwarded a screenshot from the IRS website confirming the completion of their tax amendment and questioned whether this would influence the decision.
Ten days later, on May 17th, 2021, despite the plaintiff's evidence, Rose indicated that the agency lacked confirmation that the plaintiff's amended tax return had been processed. The transcript's absence resulted in a significant discrepancy in potential loan amounts based on the reported gross revenue. Rose restated the need to wait 60 days from May 6, 2021, before reordering the tax transcripts.
The next day, the plaintiff was informed by Rose that their file had been forwarded to another department for assistance with the requested increase. This abrupt transition was given without detailed explanation, leaving the plaintiff uncertain about the next steps in the process. In response, the plaintiff voiced their frustration and confusion over the lack of clarity, and the perceived lack of assistance from the SBA.
Finally, Rose clarified that the plaintiff's file had been forwarded to the funding department to handle the increase request, citing that she had no control over this change. For any queries related to the advance funds, she directed the plaintiff to the customer service department.
On May 25, 2021, SBA Loan Specialist Austin Ross communicated with the plaintiff via email, requesting further details about the partnership filing status on the recently amended Federal Tax Return. Ross specifically states that the loan modification could not be processed until there was clarification of his business's 1065 partnership tax status. This was despite the plaintiff having shared this information multiple times in prior communications with various SBA representatives.
In response, the plaintiff reiterated the pertinent details to Ross and sought a definitive list of remaining requirements to finalize the aid request. A phone conversation between the two provided an opportunity for the plaintiff to clarify multiple points around the amended tax return, the nature of the “Qualified Joint Venture” tax status as opposed to a 1065 partnership, separation of business entities and ownership, the completion of the tax return, among other issues.
Following this conversation, Ross sent a summary email presenting two courses of action: waiting for the IRS to process the updated tax transcripts or proceeding based on the existing application details. However, discrepancies arose in Ross' recounting of the conversation, primarily concerning the waiting period for tax transcripts, the establishment of a loan modification, and the plaintiff's interest in the Targeted Advance program. Contrary to the plaintiff's stated intent to proceed correctly with the loan process and accept a loan amount commensurate to their qualifications, Ross miscommunicated this as the plaintiff preferring to wait for the updated tax transcripts due to potential differences in loan amounts.
Additionally, Ross indicated that the SBA could create a loan modification based on the existing application data, while the SBA subsequently sent a decline letter for the loan modification on June 12, 2021. Moreover, Ross's assertion that the plaintiff showed interest in applying for the Targeted Advance program misconstrued the plaintiff's wish to address the issue of the returned EIDL grant.
In closing his email, Ross expressed enthusiasm to continue working with the plaintiff, but his actions did not align with these words. The plaintiff's subsequent attempts to reach Ross through phone calls, messages, and emails went unanswered. Over a period of the next three months plaintiff would call and email Ross multiple times only to be completely ignored by Ross. This pattern of discrepancies between Ross's written statements and the actual actions of the SBA amplified the plaintiff's frustration and perceived mismanagement of their case by the SBA.
On May 28, 2021,the plaintiff received a communication from SBA Loan Specialist Dave Dubois, demanding additional documentation that didn't pertain to the nature of the plaintiff's business. These included requests for proof of an active insurance policy and board resolution providing authorization for the loan. These requests were glaringly irrelevant, considering the plaintiff operated without a board of directors and did not require an insurance policy to conduct his business. This demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding or consideration of the plaintiff's business model by the SBA.
A significant development occurred on June 12, 2021, when the plaintiff received an email from the SBA, attached with a letter dated April 3, 2021, stating that his request for a loan modification had been declined due to "Unverifiable Information." The letter claimed that during the loan underwriting process, the SBA encountered issues with the validity of some of the information the plaintiff submitted. The plaintiff was particularly perplexed because the decision to decline the loan modification was apparently made on April 3, 2021, but was only communicated to the plaintiff over two months later, exposing an egregious delay of more than two months in the SBA's communication. This decision predates the assignment of SBA Loan Specialist Anna Rose as the plaintiff's case advocate.
Seeking clarification, on June 24, 2021, the plaintiff emailed SBA Loan Specialist Austin Ross, attaching the SBA decline letter and the letter from Dave Dubois, and asked for an update on his loan modification status. However, this attempt to gain insights into his application status was also met with silence; Ross never responded to the plaintiff's inquiry. This further highlights the communication inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the handling of the plaintiff's case by the SBA.
These events draw a critical spotlight on the SBA's handling of the plaintiff's case, particularly emphasizing the disconnect in communication, a failure to comprehend the business's nature, the delayed disclosure of vital decisions, and a persistent lack of response from SBA representative Austin Ross.
On June 24, 2021, the plantiff made an attempt to resolve the ongoing loan modification issues by reaching out to multiple SBA representatives, including SBA Loan Specialist Anna Rose. Rose's response, however, was perplexing. Despite her role, she expressed unawareness of the decline letter and shifted responsibility, putting the onus on the plaintiff for not accepting a purported loan increase — an offer that, to the plaintiff's knowledge, had never been formally made.
Most importantly, Rose laid down stringent requirements, instructing the plaintiff to provide a fully processed and IRS-stamped amended tax return along with an updated and signed 4506-T form, underscoring the red tape marring the SBA's process. Furthermore, Rose highlighted that 60 days had passed since the last transcript was received, implying that the plaintiff needed to hasten his interaction with the IRS — another burden imposed on the plaintiff.
The SBA on July 1, 2021 reiterated the loan decline decision — a decision made three months prior on April 3, 2021, but uncommunicated until June 12.
In response to the array of impediments, the plaintiff kept pushing forward, providing the requested IRS transcript to Rose on July 21 and formally objecting to the decline on July 22. This well-articulated objection included necessary documentation, a fresh IRS Form 4506-T, and a specific request to move forward with the loan modification.
Throughout this convoluted process, the SBA, particularly through the actions of Rose and Ross, demonstrated an alarming level of inefficiency, bureaucratic entanglement, and unresponsiveness. The persistent silence, stringent requirements, lack of clear communication, and the controversial 60-day waiting policy before resubmitting a 4506-T form, critically marred the plaintiff's journey with the SBA, ultimately reflecting poorly on the agency's commitment to aiding small businesses.
On July 26, 2021, a detailed account of the ongoing issues was provided to Alvin Klausen, a liaison from Congressman Kurt Schrader's office, and copies were sent to SBA Loan Specialists, Anna Rose and Austin Ross. However, it seemed this attempt at gaining resolution bore no fruitful response.
In further compliance with SBA's requirements, the plaintiff sent to Anna Rose on July 31, 2021, a range of documents including an IRS-stamped Form 1040X, an IRS-printed Account Transcript, and a completed IRS Form 4506-T. This move was in response to Rose's instruction from June 24, 2021, yet there was no acknowledgement or meaningful reply.
Persisting with the process, the plaintiff dispatched exhaustive document packages to the SBA via fax on July 30 and July 31. Despite containing all necessary material to overcome the loan decline, these emails seemed to fall into a void, receiving no response.
The plaintiff took a crucial step on July 31, 2021. A detailed complaint was submitted to the Small Business Administration Office of the National Ombudsman. This report illuminated the interactions between the plaintiff, Ross, and Rose, and presented an extensive analysis of the challenges the plaintiff was encountering. Yet, in the ongoing pattern of silence, the plaintiff received no follow-up or response to this complaint.
The communication gap continued as on August 3rd, 2021, the SBA reiterated the decline reason, citing a lack of verifiable information, while ignoring the submitted IRS-stamped documents. The plaintiff tried to overcome this by sending an objection email with additional IRS documentation on August 6th, 2021, yet there was no indication of SBA's receipt or review of this new information.
On September 9th, 2021 the SBA requested 2019 business bank statements. This was curious as the SBA bypassed the essential step of ordering the IRS transcripts using the 4506-T. Moreover, it neglected to consider that the plaintiff didn't have a business bank account in 2019 and relied on online payment processors like PayPal and Amazon Pay for business transactions.
The plaintiff expressed their frustrations and disappointment in a response on September 14th, 2021. This correspondence conveyed the sentiment of being systematically ignored, manipulated, and deceived by the SBA. The plaintiff's concerns about the agency's lack of intent to provide assistance and the perceived injustices were made clear. Despite their efforts, the plaintiff was left in a seemingly endless loop of unmet requirements and unanswered queries.
In the subsequent months, the plaintiff did not receive any further information or correspondence from the SBA concerning their loan modification request, causing additional distress. The plaintiff expressed their frustration and disappointment with the entire process in an email to the SBA, stating that the constant silence and lack of feedback from the SBA were indicative of gross negligence and a breach of the SBA's fiduciary duties.
On July 31, 2021, initiated a fresh application for their sole proprietorship, [*], heeding the guidance of SBA Loan Specialist Austin Ross. It is essential to underscore here that Ross, in his advisory role, inadvertently mischaracterized [] as a cellphone repair business. However, [***] is an online retail business. Another example of Ross's blaintaint inaccuracies.
This effort was met with a contradictory response. The plaintiff was informed that their reapplication had been withdrawn due to it being a duplicate application. Then in an abrupt about-face, the SBA invited the plaintiff to proceed with the withdrawn application, issuing successive reminders about completing the application process.
Despite reservations about the sincerity of the offer, the plaintiff accepted the proposed loan amount. True to their suspicion, a decline letter arrived on October 22nd, 2021, citing the inability to verify the existence of an eligible business.
On January 3, 2022, the Plaintiff sent an email to the SBA asking to address the $1,000 advance grant that was returned June 25, 2020. The SBA responded with these instructions, "To assist in processing your request please reply to this email with: A copy of your photo identification (front and back), A copy of a check with the word "VOID" written on it (please do not redact the routing or account number) and, If you need to submit an updated 4506-T, the completed and signed corrected 4506-T form may then be sent as a reply to this email or may be emailed to [email protected]."
On January 10, 2022, the Plaintiff sent another email to the SBA with all the requested documents and expressing his frustration over the lack of resolution to his issue and the impacts it had on his eligibility for the targeted advance and the supplemental advance.
The SBA remained unresponsive and the status of the Advance on the SBA Disaster Portal was changed from "error" to "declined" without any explanation. This exclusion from the Advance Grant portion of the EIDL program, along with the Targeted Advance Grant and Supplemental Grant programs, was conducted without any legal justification.
For the record, it's important to note that the applicants must receive an official email invitation from the SBA to apply for both the Targeted EIDL Advance and Supplemental Targeted Advance. Due to the aforementioned error, the Plaintiff was deprived of this opportunity and thus, was unable to apply for these programs.
The SBA's failure to adequately process the deposit for the Advance Grant, coupled with their refusal to rectify the problem despite the Plaintiff's repeated attempts to seek a resolution, is a clear violation of their obligations. The repercussions of this error not only prevented the Plaintiff from receiving the Advance Grant but also from applying for the Targeted EIDL Advance and Supplemental Targeted Advance.
It is pertinent to highlight that these grants were crucial for the Plaintiff's businesses to mitigate the devastating financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the failure of the SBA to fulfill its duties has caused substantial harm to the Plaintiff and his businesses.
Moreover, the lack of communication from the SBA and the subsequent change in the status of the Advance from "error" to "declined" without any given explanation is unacceptable. This behavior demonstrates a blatant disregard for the dire financial circumstances the Plaintiff found himself in due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Not to be deterred, the plaintiff initiated a reconsideration request on March 1, 2022. In response, they were given a list of documents to submit, which they promptly did. Unfortunately, another decline letter soon followed, reiterating the inability to verify the business's existence.
The plaintiff sought a final reconsideration on April 2, 2022, asking for a comprehensive list of all requirements needed to overcome the stated reasons for decline. In a repetitive cycle, the SBA updated the application status on April 6, 2022, asking for a series of documents which, as per the plaintiff's account, had already been submitted numerous times.
Again the plaintiff submitted the required documents as per the updated request on the SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan Portal account. Despite this, it's important to highlight the plaintiff's firm belief that the SBA was employing tactics of constant delay or denial regardless of the file status, even when all necessary documents were submitted, and all discrepancies were addressed legally. The plaintiff contends that such an approach seems to be a systemic internal policy, serving to deter applicants until the SBA could close the program. Unfortunately, the plaintiff's diligent efforts were met with an insurmountable roadblock when the SBA announced the exhaustion of all funds under the EIDL program. This, sadly, left the plaintiff's persistent attempts to secure the loan unfulfilled.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The Plaintiff entered into a contractual relationship with the SBA when it accepted the terms of the EIDL program, which was manifested by the approval of the EIDL advance grant and signing the Loan Authorization and Agreement (LA&A) contract.
The SBA had a contractual obligation to provide the approved advance grant to the Plaintiff as well as process the Plaintiff's requests in accordance with its established procedures and guidelines.
The SBA breached this contractual obligation by failing to deposit the approved advance grant, changing the status of the advance grant from "error" to "declined" without due justification, and failing to rectify this situation despite the Plaintiff's attempts to seek resolution.
As a direct result of the SBA's breach of contract, the Plaintiff suffered significant financial harm.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA owed Plaintiff a duty of care to diligently review and process EIDL applications, provide clear and consistent communication, provide adequate customer support, and demonstrate transparency in decision-making.
The SBA breached this duty by their actions as outlined above.
As a direct and proximate result of the SBA's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including but not limited to lost opportunities for financial relief and detrimental effects on the business, in an amount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: MISREPRESENTATION
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA made representations to the Plaintiff regarding the processing of the Plaintiff's application and the subsequent steps needed to rectify the situation.
These representations were false, as evidenced by the SBA's subsequent actions, which included changing the status of the Plaintiff's application without due justification and requesting documents that had already been submitted multiple times.
The Plaintiff, relying on these misrepresentations, suffered substantial financial harm.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA violated the Plaintiff's right to due process under the Fifth Amendment by declining the Plaintiff's application without providing any legal justification or opportunity to rectify the issue.
The SBA's actions, including unresponsiveness and failure to provide a fair reconsideration process, deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to adequately address the issues affecting his eligibility for the grant and loan.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (APA)
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA, as an agency of the U.S. government, is subject to the APA, which requires federal agencies to follow certain procedures when making or changing rules.
The SBA violated the APA by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in its handling of the Plaintiff's application and its subsequent actions. This includes changing the status of the Plaintiff's grant without providing a reasoned explanation, unresponsiveness to the Plaintiff's attempts to seek resolution, and the failure to offer a fair reconsideration process in accordance with established rules and procedures.
Specifically, the SBA's refusal to rectify the erroneous deposit, even after being repeatedly informed by the Plaintiff, constitutes an arbitrary and capricious action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This statute allows courts to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Furthermore, the SBA's failure to communicate effectively with the Plaintiff about the issue, followed by the unexplained change in the status of the Advance from "error" to "declined", are against the agency's obligation of providing 'reasoned explanation' for its decisions, a principle well established in the case law, see, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
As a direct result of these violations, the Plaintiff suffered significant financial harm and a loss of opportunity to benefit from the EIDL program, the Targeted EIDL Advance, and the Supplemental Targeted Advance.
As such, the SBA's actions were in violation of the APA, and the Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the APA.

https://preview.redd.it/52tx36sznn2b1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=a9c8926b0af517a6eed7ec36670f9d4b75f608ae
Bookworm brings some changes to the MATE desktop's window manager. When you open MATE Tweak, you will see the following five options listed:
*Marco (no compositor)
*Marco (built-in: Xpresent)
*Marco (picom: Xrender)
*Marco (picom: GLX)
*Marco (picom: Hybrid)
Picom background: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Picom
My laptop is a Dell Latitude with an Intel GPU. Marco with no compositor or Xpresent caused screen tearing that, to me, was an annoyance. The three picom options enabled Compiz-like screen effects that I couldn't easily disable, and also caused lag while moving windows.
Compiz and its settings manager are still available to install, and work well enough. However, if you'd like to have a smooth Marco experience, use the following:

1. Identify your GPU kernel driver via terminal by entering: sudo lspci -k grep -EA3 'VGA3DDisplay'. Look for the line "kernel driver in use", and note what is listed there.
   
2. Navigate to the folder at /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d and create a file within labeled 20-intel.conf.
   
3. Open this file in a text editor and add the following text:
   

Section "Device"
Identifier "Intel Graphics"
Driver "XXXX"
Option "TearFree" "true"
EndSection
NOTE: Replace XXXX with the kernel driver identified in step 1.

1. Save the file and reboot.
   
2. Log in, open MATE Tweak, set your window manager as "Marco (built-in: Xpresent)" and enjoy a tear-free experience.
   

**My desktop**
Cupertino layout
https://www.reddit.com/debian/comments/ydjgil/setting_up_the_cupertino_layout_on_debian_mate/
Mint-Y theme
Mint-Y icons, modified for classic GNOME folder icons and Yaru-MATE status icons

ups driver delivered my package to the wrong address. it was a signature upon delivery item and apparently whoever it was delivered to they jusy signed for it by putting a scribble. what should I so now??

Also posted in advice but no one responded. I posted in Assistance and somebody told me to post it here for more advice.
I was in a car wreck in October '22. Everybody is fine but unfortunately my family's only car was totaled. Long story short the other driver (a teenager) was found at fault, we exchanged insurance info and went about our business. I only had liability insurance because I don't make a lot of money but this kid's Dad has USAA.
Tiny bit of background info I had a title loan taken out on my car that I was paying off. Due to the insurance company dragging their feet, and me needing a car for work, the loan defaulted and the title loan company towed, sold, and scrapped my car.
I filed a claim with the kid's insurance company, but no one ever really called me back. I've had to do all the calling and every time I called in one of the customer service reps was surprised that one step or another hadn't been done yet. Finally in December '22 I got someone on the phone who was helpful. He tried to help me set up a rental car and the inspection of the damage on my car, but it had been towed at this point. I called the title loan company and got the location of the car, gave it to the insurance guy and he said they'd be out to do the inspection "soon". Cool, I go out to my car, take my belongings out, and wait.
More months pass and I get a call from the original adjuster that was assigned to the case, whom I hadn't heard from this entire time. I think this was in February '23. She told me that because the car was sold they can't give me anything for loss of property but if I'd gotten the rental car they could reimburse me for that. I tried to explain to her that the title company may have sold the car but they didn't give me any money from the sale (the rep over at the title company even said she'd give me proof of that) plus I couldn't afford the rental car on my own and I'd been waiting for them to set it up. I've been relying on family and Uber to get around. She continued to maintain that I wouldn't be getting anything unless I provide proof of rental car and hung up.
I haven't had the time since February to keep chasing my tail with these people but now my job is in the slow months and I need a car to work the apps to supplement my income.
I've never had to sue anyone before, let alone an insurance company. What am I supposed to do? I don't even know what kind of lawyer I need.

I've reinstalled everything however i see alot of videos pointing towards a "hid-compliant game controller driver"
Mine doesn't have this i just have three: USB Input Device Xbox Controller XINPUT-compatible HID device
Everthing is working and being picked up with the XInputChecker.

This is one abysmal piece of software, seemingly programmed with almost zero field testing in a differing array of conditions, and probably my least favorite part of the entire Skip 'system'
​

1. If this was an honest question there would also be a button to immediately connect you to support, not simply an "OK" button that does nothing but close the window
2. Since an order can be assigned to you minutes prior to it actually reaching your phone, you may have already travelled several KMs in the opposite direction. Consequently, not only is the total distance incorrect, but this puts the Skip 'get your ass to the restaurant NOW!' system into over-drive through no fault of your own.
3. If the system deems you are not moving fast enough, the "Action Required" timer appears. Again the only option is an OK button that does absolutely nothing. I've actually received this popup as soon as 15 seconds after accepting an order. I literally didn't even have time to turn on my car.
4. Once you receive the second popup, almost any red light or traffic can trigger the " we did not hear from you in time, the order has been removed" message causing you to lose the order. In my experience this always happens when you are nearly at the restaurant, meaning the process restarts and in all likehood will actually cause a significant delay dispatching a new driver.
5. Once you have picked up the order, it's kind of funny that Skip becomes as quiet as a church mouse. Even with little movement and several minutes passing, no alerts or threats to remove the order. I wonder why?
6. Half the time after receiving these warnings, I still end up waiting at the restaurant for at least another 5+ minutes and receive the "waiting For an Order" Alert
7. I once contacted support when I was stuck in heavy traffic and had already received the second alert only 800 meters away from the restaurant. Supports' immediate reaction suprised me, right off the bat they asked if I wanted the order removed. I told them, no, I'm contacting you to let you know I'm very close to the restaurant and stuck in traffic, I DON'T want the order removed, and that I was concerned about the timer alert. The response "oh that's a feature of the app" - how thoughtful, a feature that makes our job, harder, more stressful and costs us time and money, you shouldn't have.

​
Overall Skip gets a well deserved FAIL for this complete clusterf*ck. It negatively impacts us, the customer and them, and should have been overhauled yesterday.

Hi folks! Is anyone able to share contact information for a trail angel or other shuttle service who could give me a ride from East Glacier to Chief Mountain on 6/24?
I'm actually hiking the GDT, but would prefer to take the train to East Glacier. (The alternative is $700+ in airfare and shuttle from Calgary). While I know I could try to hitch, I'd feel more comfortable having a ride set up in advance. In 2015 when I hitched to Chief Mountain I had some great experiences (very kind NPS employee and Blackfeet child care provider went out of their ways to help) and a Not Great experience (man told me he'd give me a ride in exchange for oral sex, though he did take no for an answer, so yay). The permit & Waterton shuttle situation also makes hitching stressful. I'd love to pay the driver for time & gas.
Feel free to message me or direct me elsewhere. Thanks in advance!

Hey all, I have a situation coming up where I'll need to get a ride from around Overstreet, and both uber and lyft seem to operate there but I'm concerned if any drivers are really out there since it's a bit out of town. I'm not in the area currently and won't be there until I actually need the ride, and it'll be going to ECP for a flight, so can anyone more familiar with getting rides in that area let me know how it is please? Thanks!