SailfishOS doesn't use the security features which are being worked on and doesn't keep up with kernel, driver and firmware updates. It doesn't use secure elements, verified boot or hardware memory tagging so it doesn't need the work being done on those things. They don't have similar requirements for hardware and have little use for what's being worked on for these devices.
The portions of SailfishOS specific to it are largely closed source including the user interface and application layer. It isn't possible to fork the overall operating system. It has much worse privacy and drastically worse security than the Android Open Source Project even without taking the GrapheneOS improvements into account. It's in an entirely different space and this has no connection to it.
Let me give you another perspective - you cannot fight a foreign state that wants to hack your device and access your personal data. Even Apple iPhones, who often taut how "secure" their devices are, remain vulnerable to state spywares. A secured device, at most, will protect your data from the police or lay cracker or malware, who lack the means to use more sophisticated methods to access your data. When Android forks (like Lineage OS or Graphene OS) advertise that their Oses are more "secure", with better "data protection", what they mean is that their OSes try and prevent data leakages to the OS vendors (like Google or Apple or other BigTech) or to online services integrated with the OS or through system and user installed apps. In other words, "privacy and security" primarily means that they try and prevent surveillance capitalism.
What a sad history. Makes me glad that my country does not have oil. Russia seems to be the only country that has (so far) withstood attempts of colonization by the western superpowers.
This is a common mistake many make - please don't be a "mind reader" and make assumptions. Seek clarification. Treat people like adults, and act like adults - you have the right to talk to anyone or ask someone for help. They have the right to be dismissive towards you or say no for whatever personal reason. People have different personalities. Sometimes, even nice people people act differently depending on the day they had and their moods. The point is, if they are strangers, you don't need to attribute any meaning or malice to this. However, always be mindful of social conventions and cultural practices.
Exactly. This is just western media trying to project some morality to what was an internationally illegal act ... (and perhaps some in the media hoping against hope this publicity would please the dear, glorious leaders of Israel and the US to end the war).
Honestly, I am disappointed that your comment was downvoted. You raise a good, if uncomfortable, point. I too tire of the well-worn phrase: "XYZ is illegal under international law". To me, interntional law is only useful for medium-sized (population-wise) states and smaller. Once you are a nation with a large population, then you can afford a large military and do whatever you want. Sure, people won't always like what you do, but there is very little they can do to stop it. Look at all the crazy shit that US, China, and Russia has been up to in the last 10 years -- plenty of violations, but few teeth to stop it. Even Israel, which is a very small state, but backed by a global superpower, has done many terrible things in Gaza.
Preventive war (attacking to neutralize a future, non-imminent threat) is considered illegal under modern international law. The UN Charter restricts the use of force to UN Security Council authorization or self-defense against an actual, imminent armed attack, making preventive actions, which target potential future dangers, unlawful.
It also allows any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the US, to unilateraly veto any binding resolution that imposes sanctions for violating said law, with no established rules or even informal expectations that they recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise.
Israel and Iran are involved in active hostilities for a long time now, direct or by proxies. Furthermore, US and Israel are making the case for a preemptive war with the advent of the Iranian nuclear program (whether you believe it or not, that’s beside the point), and those are legal.
Ok, call it a "special military operation" if you want. A war by any other name would smell just as bad.
And what is Congress - or any other part of the US government - going to do about the pedophile not following rules? Stop him? How? Every potential check and balance has either been defanged or is controlled by his supporters.
Probably nothing. Also it’s not like the Democrats have much moral high ground to stand on here either (considering that Obama did more or less the same thing several times).
But congress can of course stop Trump from doing this and a whole bunch of other stuff. The problem is that it just chose not to and to give up much of its powers to the executive over the years (in practice if not legally) due to partisan reasons..
Why can't you be at war without officially declaring it? We have had lots of wars not declared by congress. Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq. This seems like a weird way to think.
Being required legally doesn't change the actual fact of war. Sure it is breaking the law. I don't see how Libya is the one in the long list to set this precedent of illegally non-declared war.
reply