Is someone else’s surgery a legally permitted reason for international travel from the UK?

Your need to see a person before a surgery, or to bring some people to see that person, is not a medical emergency. Her need for the surgery, may be, but it is not her who wants to travel. I doubt you will get an exception.

Where you might have a chance is, it says on your link that you can travel for the same reasons you can leave home, and you can leave home

to visit someone who is dying or to visit someone receiving treatment in a hospital, hospice or care home, or to accompany a family member or friend to a medical appointment

Now, it also says you can leave home to exercise, and I’m sure you couldn’t get permission to fly to another country to exercise, so this isn’t a guarantee of success, especially since this “major surgery” is one that can be postponed a few times already.

I can’t see a way for you to apply for permission to travel; it looks like you just do it and perhaps argue with someone at the airport about it? This looks too risky to me.

My personal definition of emergency travel (under which I did travel internationally in November) is: does any cost, quarantine or other issue mean I won’t go, or will I go no matter what? I will go no matter what, then I go. In my case this involved two separate two week quarantines, one of which cost me over $5000, and Covid testing. Didn’t matter, I had to go. If your need is not that urgent, then you know you should not go.

adb – FAILED (remote: Partition should be flashed in fastbootd) PIXEL 3XL Android 11 FAILED (remote: ‘Operation not permitted’)

Could someone help me with the following problem:

I want to flash my pixel 3XL with AOSP precompiled images in android 11, but it gives me this error:

enter image description here

I have fastboot version 1: 8.1.0 + r23-5 ~ 18.04
and adb version:
Android Debug Bridge version 1.0.39
Version 1: 8.1.0 + r23-5 ~ 18.04

I have a problem when executing fastboot flash on my pixel 3xl, it returns the following error:

Writing sparse ‘system_a’ 4/6 FAILED (remote: ‘Operation not permitted’)

enter image description here

someone help me with this error.

germany – What are the “legally permitted reasons” for international travel FROM the UK?

I have a flight ticket from the UK, to Costa Rica, with a connecting flight in Germany (in March). The airline is Lufthansa.

Costa Rica is allowing international travellers in, however, the UK is currently in lockdown and has put out restrictions on leaving your home. The current rules the that UK Government has put out are not very clear:

You can only travel internationally – or within the UK – where you first have a legally permitted reason to leave home. In addition, you should consider the public health advice in the country you are visiting.

If you do need to travel overseas (and are legally permitted to do so, for example, because it is for work), even if you are returning to a place you’ve visited before, you should look at the rules in place at your destination and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) travel advice.

Additionally, the travel info page specific to Costa Rica says:

Commercial flights are not running normally. United Airlines, Iberia, Air France and Lufthansa are operating some flights and other airlines are resuming operations on certain dates. Check with the airlines or a travel agent.


Supposing that these rules are still in place in March, can I travel to Costa Rica for tourism purposes? I cannot find a list of the “legally permitted reasons” anywhere on the GOV website.

smtp – SPF SOFTFAIL domain of transitioning XX@company.com does not designate X.X.X.X as permitted sender)

in my company I have the following error.

softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning someone@company.com does not designate X.X.X.X as permitted sender) client-ip=X.X.X.X;

Let’s say my mail.company.com server is Y.Y.Y.Y, every user connects to his/her mail account from Thunderbird, the SMTP/POP3/IMAP is served by DirectAdmin hosted on Y.Y.Y.Y domain. Some of users who uses GMail to download mails from external POP3 server (mail.company.com) are receiving the above error and email is in SPAM directory. The SPF record which I had was:

v=spf1 a mx ip4:Y.Y.Y.Y ~all

The thing which I don’t understand is how is it possible that IP marked as designated IP is X.X.X.X and it differs sometimes but still it’s not SMTP server’s ip Y.Y.Y.Y?
I changed SPF record to:

v=spf1 mx a ptr ~all

But I don’t this it’s the best solution.
I have my domain stored behind cloudflare but mail.company.com is not proxied only company.com is proxied.
Thank you for any help.

dnd 5e – What are the permitted shapes of a Wall of Fire?

It’s probably a straight line (or a ring).

There are many wall of- spells in D&D 5e. Regarding shape of the wall, many use this formula:

You can make the wall up to X feet long, Y feet high, and Z feet thick.

Then, some of them go on to define alternative shapes. The following spells follow this formula (those defining an alternate shape will be denoted with a †):

  • prismatic wall
  • wall of water
  • wall of fire
  • wall of light
  • wall of sand

Each of these spells let’s you make a wall, and three of them define an alternate shape.

There is another wall spell, wind wall, which has a very important feature that is notably absent from these other wall spells:

You can shape the wall in any way you choose so long as it makes one continuous path along the ground

This phrase is entirely unique to wind wall. Wind wall uses the typical formula these other spells use, then it is uniquely defined as being able to make a wall of any shape.

If the intent of the statement:

You can make the wall up to X feet long, Y feet high, and Z feet thick

is to allow you to make a “wall” having any shape, then this unique feature of wind wall is entirely redundant.

There is room for an alternative ruling.

Obviously there is some ambiguity. My argument above requires understanding and comparing wall of fire to five other spells and saying “one of these is not like the others”. The trouble with ruling that wall of fire can be any shape is that this ruling says “even though one of these is not like the others, I’m going to rule they’re all the same.” There’s room for this given the ambiguity of what a wall is in this context, but I don’t think it is the right ruling given the uniqueness of the description of wind wall.

external disk – Can’t clear ACL on file – Operation not permitted

I have an external USB hard drive. A program I wrote is having trouble reading the files in Backups.backupdb so I look at the permissions:

> pwd
/Volumes/G-DRIVE
> ls -led Backups.backupdb 
drwxr-xr-x+ 7 rob  staff  238 Feb 10  2012 Backups.backupdb
 0: group:everyone deny add_file,delete,add_subdirectory,delete_child,writeattr,writeextattr,chown

This is an older drive. I no longer use it for Time Machine backups, so I don’t care if I clear out permissions on this folder that used to protect it.

But I can’t clear them:

> sudo chmod -N Backups.backupdb
> chmod: Failed to clear ACL on file Backups.backupdb: Operation not permitted

Attempts to find some hidden attribute that might be preventing the chmod:

> ls -ldO Backups.backupdb 
> drwxr-xr-x+ 7 rob  staff  - 238 Feb 10  2012 Backups.backupdb
> xattr Backups.backupdb 
[nothing]

Why is the operation not permitted?

I just used Disk Utility to look at the drive. It didn’t find any problems.

linux – Android device screen turning off results in chroot network errors: “ping: sendmsg: Operation not permitted”

I am running Arch Linux ARM in an Android chroot environment. When I first created the environment my user account user was able to access the network and create sockets, however the root account was not. As described in this post the users need to be part of the groups aid_inet. Adding my root user to this group allowed my root account to access the network.

$ sudo gpasswd -a root aid_inet

However when the Android device enters lock state with the screen turned off, around 5-10 mins later the user user loses the ability to access the network:

$ ping 8.8.8.8   
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
ping: sendmsg: Operation not permitted

It’s worth noting that at this point the root user can still access network even when the user user cannot, as SSHD still works.

The moment I turn the screen on (don’t need to unlock it, just press the power button) it functions as normal:

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=117 time=10.7 ms

Things which I tried but did not work:

  • Adding user to the group root
  • Finding the group ID of another Android app, and adding the user to those groups
  • Adding user to further groups: aid_net_bt_admin aid_net_bt aid_net_raw aid_net_admin aid_wakelock

networking – After editing fstab to mount an ssd on boot, my network drive no longer mounts (permitted for root only)

I have an SSD on my Ubuntu (20.04) laptop, and followed the instructions here to have it auto-mount on boot:

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-properly-automount-a-drive-in-ubuntu-linux/

It works! The SSD now mounts to /data/ on boot. Lovely.

But now my shared network drive no longer mounts at startup, and delivers this error:

mount: /media/share: operation permitted for root only. 

Here’s the fstab, with username and password removed:

UUID=91379bc5-372f-4d83-ac57-25f3990a8926 /               ext4    errors=remount-ro 0       1
# /boot/efi was on /dev/mmcblk1p1 during installation
UUID=5FE3-70E9  /boot/efi       vfat    umask=0077      0       1
/swapfile                                 none            swap    sw              0       0
//192.168.1.113/sambashare /media/share cifs username=(username)password=(password),iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm 0 0
# mounts ssd drive
UUID=ae8f74f2-7d88-43e6-8268-1fee5af6c8cd /data    auto nosuid,nodev,nofail,x-gvfs-show 0 0

I suspect something in the creation of the group and the chown command did something, but I’m not sure what, or how to undo it. I’d like to retain the SSD auto-mounting at boot and restore the network drive mounting as well.

At what stage of California’s COVID-19 reopening is travel for tourism permitted?

This question is about what is permitted by health orders (rather than what is prudent based on personal risk assessment).

I understand there are four reopening stages defined statewide, but each county gets approval to progress through the stages at an appropriate pace based on local conditions. What stage does a given county have to reach for leisure travel/tourism to be permitted there? I would think this answer would be uniform across California, even though different counties are in different stages at a given time.

Per the state page, stage 3 allows “Travel for permissible activities, such as healthcare, food, stages 1-3 work, and (local shopping or other activities) related to open sectors.” The phrase in brackets is my correction of mangled text based on a similar phrase used in stage 2. It is unclear to me whether “activities related to open sectors” in stage 3 includes tourism.

One news article says, “Monterey County…will welcome the return of tourism on June 12, when it enters into Stage 3… Hotels and campgrounds will reopen”. But another article, for San Francisco, lists “All hotels and lodging for leisure and tourism” only under “Phase 4“.

Even if I am not staying overnight in a particular county, this article says, “When planning road trips for the summer, experts say that it’s safe to assume that if campgrounds and hotels are open, then travel is appropriate.”

Another confusing statement is on a San Francisco government site (updated June 22): “You can fly in and out of the Bay Area only for essential activities or business.” This statement is phrased for the entire Bay Area — but San Mateo County, which is in the Bay Area and the home of San Francisco International Airport (SFO), is currently in stage 3 as of June 17. If I cannot currently fly in or out of SFO for leisure, this seems to indicate that stage 3 may not be sufficient.

For leisure travel in California, do I need to wait until all counties I will pass through are in stage 3, or stage 4?

Is some remote work now permitted for travelers admitted to the UK on a tourist entry?

Users at Travel:SE have for years accepted the idea that a visitor to the UK may not use a tourist entry to “live” in the UK, and may not work remotely in the UK while visiting. The first issue seems settled, and is not the focus of this question. This question addresses only the second issue: whether a visitor to the UK may work remotely while in the UK.

Previous questions addressing this are legion, a few on Travel.StackExchange are this one and this one ; others on Expatriates.StackExchange are this one and this one. Yesterday, the question My girlfriend lives in the UK and I want to be able to come and leave as I please for next 3 years—which visa should I get? was posted on Travel:SE, and the answers and comments took the usual you-can’t-work-remotely-while-visiting track. No surprises there.

Then user @ZenJ posted an interesting comment. Here’s the comment:

Actually I just found this: Immigration Rules Appendix V: visitor
rules (gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/…) and sections 4.5-4.7
prohibit work in UK for UK company, but allow remote work (at least
how I understand it). In addition, where the applicant is already paid
and employed outside of the UK, they must remain so. Next paragraph
4.7 prohibits payment only from UK sources

The actual Guidance text in Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 reads as follows:

Prohibited activities

Work

V 4.5 The applicant must not intend to work in the UK, which includes the following:

(a) taking employment in the UK;

(b) doing work for an organisation or business in the UK;

(c) establishing or running a business as a self-employed person;

(d) doing a work placement or internship;

(e) direct selling to the public;

(f) providing goods and services;
unless expressly allowed by the permitted activities in Appendices 3, 4 or 5.

V 4.6 Permitted activities must not amount to the applicant taking
employment, or doing work which amounts to them filling a role or
providing short-term cover for a role within a UK based
organisation. In addition, where the applicant is already paid and
employed outside of the UK, they must remain so. Payment may only be
allowed in specific circumstances set out in V 4.7.

Payment V 4.7 The applicant must not receive payment from a UK source
for any activities undertaken in the UK, except for the following:

(a) reasonable expenses to cover the cost of their travel and subsistence,
including fees for directors attending board-level meetings; or

(b) prize money; or

(c) billing a UK client for their time in the UK,
where the applicant’s overseas employer is contracted to provide
services to a UK company, and the majority of the contract work is
carried out overseas. Payment must be lower than the amount of the
applicant’s salary; or

(d) multi-national companies who, for
administrative reasons, handle payment of their employees’ salaries
from the UK; or

(e) where the applicant is engaged in Permitted Paid
Engagements (PPE) as listed at Appendix 4, provided the applicant
holds a visa or leave to enter as a PPE visitor; or

(f) paid performances at a permit free festival as listed in Appendix 5.

I’m a retired lawyer in the US, and familiar with reading statutes and rules. While the See All Updates link shows the Guidance’s amendment history, its format is unfamiliar to me and hard to read. This text, however, seems to have been in place for at least a year.

The text in these three sections seems to contradicts the common knowledge we’ve shared here for years. § 4.5 contains work prohibitions, but it’s not difficult to define remote work that would not foul them. For example, a traveler employed by a non-UK firm, which firm doesn’t have a presence in the UK, sell product in the UK, or meet clients in the UK, appears to escape this section’s prohibitions.

§ 4.6 is more of the same, and even contains this tidbit:

In addition, where the applicant is already paid and employed outside
of the UK, they must remain so.

§ 4.7 simply prohibits payment from UK sources.

All told, this looks like remote work is permitted on a tourist entry, provided the remote work doesn’t violate any of the no-nos set forth in these three sections.

For another example, consider a foreign academic, normally resident in a home country and not in the UK, employed by a home country institution in the home country, and paid in home-country currency by that non-UK institution into a home-country bank account. It appears that this individual could work remotely while a visitor in the UK without violating any of these prohibitions, provided the work consisted only (for example) of leading online classes of students who themselves all remain in the home country.

Thus, my question: Is some remote work now permitted for travelers admitted to the UK on a tourist entry?