Those two mean the same thing: the deadline is Friday. There's a slight difference in tone, though.
The first wording (doesn't..until) has a more relaxed tone; it's almost suggesting that a little bit of procrastinating is okay. The second wording (has..by) suggests more of a sense of urgency.
So, let's say it's Tuesday, and I'm working on a report. A coworker asks me out to lunch. If I think I can go to lunch and still make my deadline, I might say:
Sure, let's go. This report doesn't need to be ready until Friday.
but if I think that going out to lunch now means staying late on Thursday, I might be more inclined to say:
No, sorry. This report needs to be ready by Friday. Maybe next week.
That said, this is a somewhat subtle nuance, and the two situations wouldn't necessarily require those respective wordings.
Similarly, let's say I'm the boss, and I'm assigning the report to a subordinate, who asks me, "When do you need this report?" If I answer:
The report doesn't need to be ready until Friday.
that implies I don't need it right away. I might say that on a Monday or Tuesday, but I wouldn't say that on Thursday. However, if I say:
The report has to be ready by Friday.
that implies a more urgent sense in the matter, and perhaps someone will be in hot water if the report is late.
Because he didn't stand up: he didn't rise from (out of) his seat, he raised his body a little bit while still in his seat. He "moved from a lower position to a higher one" while still in his seat.
rise
1 Move from a lower position to a higher one
(Oxford)
To be 'in' his seat means to be 'enclosed' within his seat; so one can rise in one's seat by raising or boosting oneself up by several means. One's bottomside does not have to be in contact with the seat bottom to be considered in one's seat. Etiquette might say that, but grammar doesn't
I believe the difference between onto/on to and/or into/in to has been covered previously; search for it and if you can't find an answer, ask a new question.
Best Answer
The meaning of until changes if the time being referenced is a period of time. For instance, compare: "wait until tomorrow" with "wait until after tomorrow". This is because a period of time is defined by two events: its beginning and end. And "until" works in such a way that "until tomorrow" is referenced the start of tomorrow, while "after tomorrow" is referenced to tomorrow's end.
The meaning of until does not change if a single precise event is referenced, rather than a range of time. The reason is that "X not until Y" implies that event Y happens first, and then X. And that is exactly the same as X happening after Y; i.e. not until after Y. Similarly, the positive version "X until Y" implies that event Y cancels X. But event Y has to occur first, causing the cancellation of X. In other words, the cancellation of X takes place after event Y. The implicit causality makes "after" redundant.
For instance, "wait until the light turns green" isn't meaningfully different from "wait until after the light turns green". Canceling the wait, and proceeding through the intersection is triggered by seeing the green light, and seeing the green light takes place after it turns green. It is plausible that "after" serves as an intensifier, such that "wait until after the light turns green" emphasizes the need to wait properly and not move before the change. Also consider a sentence like, "In a bankruptcy, unsecured creditors don't get paid until after the preferred creditors, if at all". The "after" here seems to be quite necessary, not only for emphasis but because the unsecured creditors getting paid is not caused by or triggered by the preferred creditors getting paid. There is a due process external to both of them which imposes an order.
About dawn, it is an extended event, like "tomorrow". Dawn does not begin when the sun comes up; dawn ends at that point, which is called "sunrise".