Last I checked they're not very keen on repairability (Being able to remove glass and being able to fix everything are two different things) and sustaniability (and no making a phone more efficient/produce less ghg/etc does not mean caring about sustainability when your whole model is mass producing and selling new phones every year while encouraging customers to ditch their current functioning phones for the new one, sometimes by purposefully removing support for them or bricking them with updates)
Sure a state of intoxication can remove the ability to consent and that is something the two need to discuss beforehand too, but if here both are equally drunk or they agreed to it at any level of drunkenness, nobody can read minds so going by the information available to any person we can say there was consent because they agreed beforehand. If any part specifies "it's ok unless we get too drunk" then it's a different case of course.
I don't fully understand what you mean in the second question, is part one agreeing to pretend to be blacked out but then blacks themselves out without part two knowing? Or is part one not knowing they are getting knocked out drunk? Because in the first case, where Person 1 agrees to have sex when pretending to be blacked out but then secretly blacks themselves out then person 2 is innocent and if anything the victim since they consented to having sex with the other person pretending to be in an intoxicated state and not necessarily actually being in that state. If it's the second scenario then person 2 is completely guilty because person 1 did not agree to having sex while being blacked out
If before being drunk both parties stated something along the lines of "let's get drunk and have sex" and both agreed then it is obviously consensual. Grabted consent can be removed at any point but if neither party states/shows intention to back out it is safe to assume that there was consent during the act even if both parties were drunk because they'd agreed to it beforehand.
An important distinction to make is between the prior scenario in which both people agree with each other and one where I (hypothetical I) go to an event where it is explicitly stated that there will be a lot of alcohol and sex, I know of this fact and I agree that I want to have sex whike drunk. This is because while the assumption of consent still holds true it is an assumption as I need to know beforehand what I'm getting into and it's not exactly a given that I would consent to having it with anyone at that party over specific people. This obviously complicates things. Essentially everyone involved would need to be on the same page as tonwhat they're getting into and agree beforehand that they want to have sex whike drunk and with whom.
If there's no prior agreement the safest bet is don't have sex with drunk people. Naturally if both are at an equal level of drunkenness (≠ equal amount of drinks) it is difficult to assign blame but that doesn't mean both consented. It also depends on the level of drunkenness: two buzzed people who are still capable of understanding what is going on, can still communicate and are just less inhibited can probably still consent, two passed out drunk people cannot consent.
Really? Because so far despite removing consumer choice the phones have been getting bigger rather than more efficiently using their space. Also you just use the screen, I don't recall a screen having to make way for a tiny headphone jack. In fact I don't really see any benefits coming from freeing up that little space. Not that I can verify that for myself since that would mean being able to open my phone more than once and therefore being able replace the battery and repair my phone and we can't have that because it would hurt the bottom line of small mom n pop businesses like Apple or Samsung.
A headphone jack is certainly not such a big deal in terms of space that it warrants removing it at the expense of consumer choice just because redballoon here wants an extra cm³ inside their phone to be empty.
there's quite a few logs. Most say nothing at all or nothing useful.
running cat /var/log/samba/log.* the relevant parts (those datestamped at today) are probably these:
[2023/08/30 19:14:11.706304, 0] ../../source3/smbd/server.c:1784(main)
smbd version 4.13.13-Debian started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2020
[2023/08/30 19:14:12.011725, 0] ../../lib/util/become_daemon.c:135(daemon_ready)
daemon_ready: daemon 'smbd' finished starting up and ready to serve connections
[2023/08/30 19:20:39.232740, 0] ../../source3/smbd/server.c:1784(main)
smbd version 4.13.13-Debian started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2020
[2023/08/30 19:20:39.301393, 0] ../../lib/util/become_daemon.c:135(daemon_ready)
daemon_ready: daemon 'smbd' finished starting up and ready to serve connections
[2023/08/30 19:38:34.162744, 0] ../../source3/smbd/server.c:1784(main)
smbd version 4.13.13-Debian started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2020
[2023/08/30 19:38:34.231542, 0] ../../lib/util/become_daemon.c:135(daemon_ready)
daemon_ready: daemon 'smbd' finished starting up and ready to serve connections
Literally every major company on the planet is, doesn't mean they actually are working towards it.