Samsung embeds IronSource spyware app on phones across WANA

> what's so difficult about flashing a stock image to a device being serviced?

Yes, I think that would cover most cases if we take it to its logical conclusion of wiping all device state (hard disk). OTOH, a few points:

1. I would accept the need to wipe the hard disk if I had messed with firmware or the OS, but not if a couple of keys on the keyboard had stopped working. This implies that (for me at least) a meaningful distinction remains between these two "levels" of warranty service. Do you agree?

2. Activities like overclocking or overvolting a CPU have the potential to cause lasting damage that can't be reversed by re-flashing. Under the policy you're suggesting, it would be illegal for manufacturers to offer users the option "You can pull this pin low to overclock outside the supported range, but you will void the warranty by doing so", and too expensive for them to endlessly replace parts damaged by these activities for free under warranty, so that consumer option, rare as it already is, would go away completely.

3. I still think there may be some devices that are impractical to completely re-flash. According to this 2021 Porsche article [0], modern cars contain 70-100 ECUs (microcontrollers), each of which will have its own flash/EEPROM.

[0]: https://medium.com/next-level-german-engineering/porsche-fut...

Marble-QT works fine for OSM maps on Linux, if you run gpsd you can even use a GPS receiver and have the pin move around with you, I used this to help survey some land I bought recently.

Google Maps's search/review works fine on the web, I'd imagine the experience is probably nicer on the web than mobile.

Qwen and gemma both run locally on Linux and are excellent for translation.

[dead]

I meant my response specificly in the context of the post i was responding to - namely that Israel was tracking some high level officials and then bombing the building they were in - which is what i assume the parent was claiming was a war crime.

Other actions in this conflict of course could be crimes and require appropriate analysis.

> Since Israel started the war without authorization being the security council, it's legally the aggressor. Which means the actions in of themselves are crimes, regardless of where they are conducted.

I disagree with the way you phrased this. The analysis of if the use of force is legal in general should be separate from if individual actions are war crimes. See https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/jus-ad-bellum-and-jus... which emphasizes that jus ad bellum is separate from jus in bello.

Israel is probably going to claim self-defense here (you do not need UNSC permission for a defensive war). The claim is probably pretty far-fetched unless there is some bombshell evidence we are not privy to, as the threat does not seem imminent the way self-defense normally requires.

OTOH - the last time anyone cared about the crime of agression was germany in WW2 (although there are some voices about ukraine & russia). People tend to care much more about war crimes than crimes of aggression.

> Israel has hit hospitals in Tehran

I'm not aware of this allegation. I did hear an allegation from Iran about a hospital in Kermanshah. Regardless, if it is true, it would indeed probably be a war crime. (Generally speaking. Details do matter in these sorts of things)

> And condos

I think the analysis of this would require knowing what specificly was targeted. Generally of course, civilian housing is not an acceptable target, but if for example,it was housing for senior military leadership, that might change things.

> Now, one could object and say that Israel has to commit war crimes because it's so endangered.

If by war crime you mean commit "agression" (to be clear, the crime of agression is not a war crime. These are two separate categories of crimes), this would be an argument that the act is not "agression", since defensive wars are allowed to be done without UNSC approval. You only need UNSC approval if you are not facing an imininent threat.

> Who on the security council would vote against Israel if the threat was remotely real?

Security council is largely about geopolitics, and russia & iran are allies.

I mean, the ICC did issue a warrant for individuals on both sides of that conflict and seems willing to prosecute. The Palestinian national died in the conflict, so obviously could not be prosecuted. The Israeli nationals are regrettably refusing to surrender themselves, which would be an issue no matter which body attempted to prosecute (unless it was a domestic Israeli court). That is hardly a situation unique to this conflict - lots of people with warrants attempt to evade capture.

The US behaviour is despicable, but ultimately it hasn't really changed anything.