I have a rooted Galaxy S7.  I'd like to give permission to an app that does not request it to write to the external SD card storage.  How can I do this?
I would like to grant the  app write access to external storage in Marshmallow.  The app does not request it explicitly (unlike other apps that seem to use the Storage Access Framework to do so).    In the app permissions screen, there is no permission listed for external storage, only for 'storage' (which seems to mean internal storage).  So there does not seem to be any direct way to grant this permission.   My phone is rooted and I could just run Syncthing as root - but this option creates many problems and sometimes results in the app hanging indefinitely.    Is there any other way around this problem?
Does this need a comma? I'm proofing a story, and at one point, as it is written at the moment, one the characters exclaims:     Prepare to die you fool!   Should there be comma after "die"? BibTeX: Abbreviate first name (aka given name) to 2 or 3 letters (not 1) 60% Downpayment on house? Solve a system of equations with Euclid's Algorithm Can black holes actually merge? If time stops at the event horizon, can we ever detect two black holes merging? In other words, if you are a short distance away, would you encounter a spherically symmetric gravitational field, or a dipole field? How do you test non-live sites before switching DNS? I have a few websites that I need to move to a new server - how would I test that they work before switching DNS? What URL would I navigate to? Apply for a Korean visa in Japan I'm a Vietnamese citizen and currently living in Japan. Can I apply for a South Korea tourist visa at the Korean embassy in Japan, or must I do it at the Korean embassy back in Vietnam? I am going to put an additional (non-USB) hard drive in my system. I already have Ubuntu on my other hard drive so I do not want to install Ubuntu on the additional drive but only use it for storage. How do I add the additional hard drive to my Ubuntu system, e.g. make Ubuntu recognize it and mount it properly? Mistakenly filed as Exempt from income tax witholdings for entire year 2019 I am a basic 30 year old filing Single, W2, healthy working individual. No dependents, no additional schedules, capital gains or losses other than Student Loan interest expense.   I started a new job in January 2019 and somehow during my new hire enrollment, "I or someone" marked in my file as Exempt... I am pretty familiar with filing my own 1040 (as its pretty basic)and I know for a fact that I would never for under any reason think that I am Exempt from absolutely anything tax related. Nobody in my new job's HR department reached out to confirm whether this Exemption was correct or not with me personally. My CPA said that anytime they receive an Exempt W-4 form, that they automatically return the form to the employer to confirm.   I unknowingly went 11 full months in 2019 without any taxes being withheld. Of course my paycheck was more than before, but I also got a better/higher salary job, so I never thought about the difference being from not paying taxes. And, no I do not print out my paystubs. It’s all through Paycom and it clearly shows you your gross pay &amp; a "$XXX" amount in deductions/withholdings - kicker is, you have to click the drop down menu to actually see the entire breakdown. At which point, I never saw the big $0 in taxes being withheld... I know the taxes have to be paid one way or another, but I don't feel like I should be entirely responsible for a $5k-$6k tax liability for a HR clerical error. Even if I did actually input it incorrectly the first time.   Is there a way to check with the IRS to see if they indeed receive my file as Exempt and if they did actually return it to my Employer? I’m just wondering if either HR forgot to follow up with me or even IF the IRS does actually cull these exempt requests in the first place? I don't have the liquidity to simply pay the IRS all at once.   What would be my best option going forward? I am planning to visit London for 6 days from the US. I have given my biometrics and when I was preparing to mail my documents to the UK visa processing center in the US, I used this link from the UK government website to cross-check the documents to be sent to the processing center.     (Guide to supporting documents).  Something that really surprised me was in Section 4 (documents that should NOT be sent along with the package) was hotel bookings and flights bookings.     Section 4: documents you should not send unless specifically requested      This page provides guidance on the types of documents that are not required to consider your application.         hotel bookings   flight bookings      Typically I have always been asked to provide my travel plans, accommodation plans and proof of them. This is the first time that travel plans and accommodation plans are not asked to be sent. What might be the reason behind it? This really confuses me. Any help in clearing my confusion would be greatly welcome. Where M is a matrix calculate a formula for M^n Let $$M = \begin{bmatrix} -7 &amp; 8 \\ -8 &amp; -7 \end{bmatrix}.$$ Find formulas for the entries of $M^n$ where $n$ is a positive integer.  (Your formulas should not contain complex numbers.)  Your answer should be in the form of a matrix.  I diagonalized to the form $M = P D P^{-1}$  and $M^n = P D^n P^{-1}$ where $P$ is my matrix of eigenvectors and $D$ is my matrix of eigenvalues.  My final answer after diagonalization was $$M^n = \begin{bmatrix} .5((-7+8i)^n+(-7-8i)^n) &amp; (i/2)(-(-7+8i)^n+(-7-8i)^n) \\ (.5/i)(-(-7+8i)^n+(-7-8i)^n) &amp; .5((-7+8i)^n+(-7-8i)^n) \end{bmatrix}$$  I can't seem to find an answer not in terms of complex numbers.  Can someone show me what I'm missing? How do I get attention for old, unfixed bug reports and feature requests without official responses here on Meta? I posted a question here on Meta Stack Exchange, or on a per-site meta, regarding a bug I found in the system. I got no comments, or a few comments stating that this is a legitimate bug (and not by design). However, it's been quite a long time, and no official response was ever posted there.  Or, I had an idea for a new feature, but realized it's already requested, either by searching or posting a request myself only to have it closed as a duplicate of the existing one. It's been a while since the original request was filed, but no official response has been made.   I'm aware that staff members are , but either my post isn't about one of the indicated topic areas for which they're accepting escalation requests for that month, or I already flagged to request escalation but it was declined, so the instructions there don't apply for my post.  What can I do to draw attention to meta questions for the SE team, so they can give an official response, and possibly implement the bug fix or feature?  Note: This is different from other general questions which ask for how to get attention for unanswered questions, since the procedures on meta sites are different, and getting an official response isn't necessarily the same as getting a good answer. Prove that $\sin(\theta) + \sin(\theta+2\pi/3) + \sin(\theta+4\pi/3) = 0 $ for any angle $\theta$.   This came up in the context of electricity:  It is common in electrical power engineering to use three-phase circuits with sinusoidal currents out of phase with each other by 120 degrees. The benefit of this is that the currents sum to zero at the neutral point meaning less copper is required for the system.    However, while I know that the three phasors always sum to zero, and can see visually, as in the figure that this is true at every point, how can this be shown more formally, or algebraically? Is every complex (smooth) manifold a scheme? The question in the title doesn't quite make sense. I was always wondering if the scheme is the generalization of manifold. The precise statement should be like following:  If $X$ is a complex (smooth)manifold, is there a scheme $Y$ over $\mathbb{C}$ such that the corresponding analytic space $Y^{an}$ isomorphic to $X$?  I guess if $X$ is projective, then this is Chow's theorem. And I doubt the question has an affirmative answer if $X$ is non-compact (I guess that $X: y-e^x=0$ in $\mathbb{C}^2$ might be an example, but I do not know how to show this).  Edit 1:  There are also example (as @hunter pointed out) of a complex torus but not an abelian variety shows that a compact manifold might not be a variety, however, is it possible to be a scheme ?(according to Hartshorne, the category of varieties is a subcategory of quasi-projective, integral, separated scheme. But could there be some non-quasiprojective scheme($Y$ has to be integral, separated in our case according to GAGA, I guess) )?  Edit 2: Another question I think of is: is (Artin) Stack a generalization of manifold? I really want to know if manifold could be think of some subcategory of some category of with "algebraic objects". Replace Builtin commands with Custom Commands for CMD.exe What should I do when my neural network doesn't generalize well? alias or bash function does not work When I create  alias wd='ps -ef | grep java | awk {'print $2 " " $9'} | egrep "(A|B|C|D)"'   or  function wd () {     ps -ef | grep java | awk '{print $2}' ... }   in my .bashrc file, I get errors.  Interestingly, if I source my .bashrc file with the function, it 'compiles', but when executing, gives me:   context is      &gt;&gt;&gt; \ &lt;&lt;&lt; {\print     missing }   Can someone help me with this, and also answer when its better to put something in a function versus in an alias? Maximal order of an element in a symmetric group Consider the diagram below:  (Author: Joshua Hykes )  From this diagram we can see that the absorption coefficient for the photoelectric effect generically decreases with the increase in energy of the photon. What is the physical reason for this decrease. (i.e. why does the probability of photoelectric absorption decreases with increasing photon energy).  Note: I am aware that the large spin is due to more inner electrons been able to be lifted.  Edit For Clarity  I will here rephrase the question: in the above diagram there is a general decrease in the absorption coefficient due to the photoelectric effect (i.e. the absorption of a photon by an electron and subsequent emission of that electron) with energy (ignoring the occasional absorption edge). This is of course linked to a decrease in the probability of the photoelectric effect occurring (and a corresponding decrease in the cross section). My question is: what is causing this decrease with increasing energy. (For the purpose of this question I am ignoring the contribution due to the Compton effect and pair production and simply focusing on the cross section due to the photoelectric effect.) Show group of order $4n + 2$ has a subgroup of index 2. Let $n$ be a positive integer. Show that any group of order $4n + 2$ has a subgroup of index 2. (Hint: Use left regular representation and Cauchy's Theorem to get an odd permutation.)  I can easily observe that $\vert G \vert = 2(2n + 1)$ so $2 \mid \vert G \vert$ and 2 is prime. We have satisfied the hypothesis of Cauchy's Theorem so we can say $G$ contains an element of order 2.  This is where I am stuck  I am confused about how the left regular representation relates to the group. So my understanding at this point is that every group is isomorphic to a subgroup of some symmetric group. My question: is the left regular representation $\varphi : G \to S_G$ an isomorphism? where $G \cong S_G$ or is $S_G$ the same thing as $S_{\vert G \vert}$ and $\varphi$ is only an injection? I'm using Dummit and Foote for definitions.  I saw an argument online that said that since we have an element of order 2, there is a $\sigma \in S_G$ of order 2, but it is a product of $2n + 1$ disjoint 2-cycles. I don't understand how they could claim this and tried working it out on my own but didn't get there. -- They then went on to use the parity mapping $\varepsilon : S_G \to \{\pm1\}$ and since we have an odd permutation $\sigma$, we have $[S_G:\text{ker }\varepsilon] = 2$. I understood their computation but not how that directly shows that $G$ has a subgroup of order 2? unless $G \cong S_G$ because of how left regular representation is defined. (but again, I'm not understanding that concept very well yet.)  So, to be clear about my questions:   What is meant by left regular representation, is it an isomorphism or just an injection? and how would it be used here. If it is an isomorphism, the argument online starts to make more sense, but how can they say that since $\sigma$ is even, it is made up of $2n + 1$ disjoint transpositions? If you have a full, proof, I'd appreciate it, but good hints are just as good!   Thanks you!