Gingsberg stole it from Yeats — “the best lack all conviction…” / “the best minds of my generation…” — many similar verses, e.g., “what rough beast…” / “what sphinx of cement…”
Those aren't nearly close enough to be considered stolen. Possibly allusions (which is not stealing), but even then, the only similarity of the bests is "The best" usage. Nothing about the rest of the lines, or before, are similar enough to be "stolen" (potentially the Ginsberg troping Yeat's "full of passionate intensity" of the worst into his best's "madness, starving hysterical", but that too is allusion, not stealing).
The best lack all conviction, while the worst //
Are full of passionate intensity.
vs
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, //
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
Sorry I was unclear. I was trying to speculate on the question, "Why is there an income limit?".
Before digging into this, I thought the IRS set the income limit. (e.g. "We the IRS want all people earning less than $65k to have free tax prep.")
It appears it was the other way around: the memos show the IRS sets the % of the population it wants to have free tax prep services (70%), and the FreeFile income limits are calculated so in theory only the highest (30%) of incomes must pay for tax prep.
So I speculate that the answer to "Why is there an income limit?” may be "It was part of an attempt between the IRS and the private sector to have the richest 30% subsidize everyone else's tax prep."
The program is for federal tax filing, not state tax. I think you may be misreading this line:
> Most of those states don’t tax income at the state level, but the four that do...will guide participants to a state-supported tool that they can use to submit their state returns.
Which means it's _more_ incomplete in states with income tax (federal return through IRS pilot, state return through a state system) than in states without income tax (just federal IRS pilot return).
File Providers are useful in some scenarios, but they are also not really a FUSE equivalent.
They're more geared towards Dropbox-like synchronizing use cases. Some developers have made it work for SSHFS too, but even that's already a bit of a stretch; for more custom solutions it definitely falls short: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/681325
The only option currently seems to be to implement a network file server such as SMB (which is what Google Drive used to do before File Providers existed!) or NFS, for which there even is a FUSE bridge available: https://github.com/macos-fuse-t/fuse-t
It's unfortunate that fuse-t follows the same closed source model as MacFUSE did. It's really holding things back.
I was hopeful that Ganesha NFS [1] would suffice as a bridge for the various FUSE filesystems I need to use with macOS, but alas, they have abandoned the FUSE interface and moved to FSAL/FSAL_VFS [2].
It would be really nice to have a clear path to building a copy of Ganesha NFS that supported a whole host of the great FUSE filesystems out there built to this API.
Watch out for for the Mac SMB client. I found a bug in several MacOS versions which causes the SMB client to send an incorrect file handle in some file requests, causing random files to be deleted which are unrelated to the files you're operating on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37345855
If you've ever had a suspicion about files on an SMB share going missing, occasionally, when there's been a Mac client using the share, this does indeed happen.
That's a scary thought, I depend on mounting NFSv4 files systems. I'm not sure SMB is a replacement, almost certainly wouldn't be as performant [on 10/100 GbE networks].
Me too – I actually only found out it was still around (and not just around, but even supporting v4!) when I looked at fuse-t as an alternative to macFUSE.
> Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII, so it looks like the entirety of the U.S. military is in violation of this. It's looking more and more like what actually gets prosecuted is a political decision.
Yes, this is true, but in a far more boring way than you imagine. Prosecutors have huge latitude on what to prosecute, and the police on what to direct investigatory resources to. At every point, the unconscious and sometimes conscious politics of the people making those decisions are in play. That’s what makes reforming the system so hard.
Am I reading this wrong or are foreign heads of state that produce nuclear weapons technically committing a crime which the US considers itself to have jurisdiction over? If so why aren't they arrested when they travel to the US?
Where would this leave Elon Musk and his possible servicing of Putin? He'a got money so I know he'll be fine but still kind of shocked such a high-profile government contractor can get away with this kind of thing with no collateral damage to their business or personal effects
