this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
312 points (99.4% liked)

Canada

9160 readers
1971 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UnculturedSwine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

'The F-35 may not have a “kill switch” in the traditional sense, but the countries who bought it are locked into an irrevocable pact with Lockheed Martin and America. ALIS/ ODIN might not be able to turn off the F-35 remotely, but losing access to it can make it impossible to fly.

Only one country has escaped the F-35 software and logistics trap while still being able to fly the jet: Israel. The IDF’s contract for the jet allows it to operate its own software systems without ALIS/ ODIN and conduct its own maintenance.'

So apparently only Israel can operate these planes without their weird DRM.

[–] iamai@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

How do they lock the systems out so much that it's so difficult to reverse engineer something to make the mechanics work? I guess you wouldn't want to try and fly something to test new software but surely ground testing is possible?

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

They’re absolutely right in that regard—technically, it’s more of a Deadman Switch.

[–] bingBingBongBong@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Honest question because I don't know: I thought the US could only afford F35 development and purchasing cost because its supply chain was internationalized.

If all the world would suddenly decide to stop working on F35, and stopped supplying parts, wouldn't the US fleet also disintegrate after some time?

[–] KlausWintergreen@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The vast majority of the F-35 construction is actually done inside the US, and that's required for security requirements for things like this.

Now a bunch of countries (Canada, UK, Netherlands, and some others) did contribute to the development of the F-35 but I want to say it was only around ~10% of the total cost. And that also went towards the purchase price of their first block of airframes.

UK alone was 10%.

There are components made by the international partners

https://simpleflying.com/how-many-international-parts-us-f-35-fighter-jet/

I sincerely doubt any other than the UKs aren't easily replaceable by the US and for the UK piece BAE has US sites all of whom I'm sure have at the very least full access to the specs.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)
[–] RozzyRhoads@lemmy.world 105 points 1 week ago (3 children)

“There is no killswitch” is exactly what I would expect the person who installed a killswitch to say.

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

There are 8 million lines of code in the F35 integrated computer system.

So, how the hell would anyone know one way or the other? Only Israel is permitted extensive independent testing and access to open custom design. All other countries must test systems on the US continent and have US oversight during testing.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

"You see, there is no kill switch, but you do have to install this software license that expires every tree months. That's so we know you paid for the required service updates and software support."

"But if you don't give a license, the plane doesn't fly!"

"Well, yes, but we can't shut it down remotely so it's technically not a kill switch."

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Every flight requires inputting a password from Lockheed to use their electronic systems mentioned in article.

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 11 points 6 days ago

So technically an on switch, not an off switch.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 75 points 1 week ago (2 children)

WaaS - War as a Service. Your subscription to peace is expiring soon.

[–] robbinhood@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

I mean guys, stop freaking out. What possible could go wrong if we enshitify global geopolitics?

God, I'm so disgusted now. I never actually connected those two dots. F'ing Donald is turning into a mobster-netflix mash up demanding subscription fees or he'll break your legs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 60 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is no kill switch for the F-35, but the JPO’s statement points to the very real problems with the weapons system. In its own words, the jet “operates under well-established agreements,” its strength “lies in its global partnership,” and JPO “[remains] committed to providing all users with the full functionality and support they require.” In other words, the F-35 doesn’t fly unless JPO helps you, but don’t worry because it’s committed to helping.

The F-35 may not have a “kill switch” in the traditional sense, but the countries who bought it are locked into an irrevocable pact with Lockheed Martin and America. ALIS/ ODIN might not be able to turn off the F-35 remotely, but losing access to it can make it impossible to fly.

Only one country has escaped the F-35 software and logistics trap while still being able to fly the jet: Israel. The IDF’s contract for the jet allows it to operate its own software systems without ALIS/ ODIN and conduct its own maintenance.

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I don't understand how Israel gets to be so special. I also don't get how any other nation would accept anything less, especially once the deal with Israel proved it (politically) can be done. Technical feasibility shouldn't even be in question.

Well, I guess it's nice that militaries get to "own nothing and be happy" too.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because the assumption is that if Canada ever goes against US wishes, it means Canada is an enemy, and the kill switch goes off, but if Israel ever goes against US wishes, it means some lefty pinko commie got into office, and we must protect Israel's role in the rapidly approaching rapture!

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Ugh. This is the explanation I buy. It's the only one more powerful than the constant drive for economic dominance demanding absolute control of everything.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's actually a very telling carve-out, and I have no idea what it's doing so far down in the article. It should have been front and center.

The only two logical conclusions I can see are:

  • Israel is so sharp with their negotiation that they spotted and fought for something that it just didn't occur to anyone else would be something worth worrying about (possible, I guess.)
  • We already know that Israel is fucked without us, F-35s or no, so there's no particular reason we would need to separately ensure that their F-35s are fucked without us.

I very much suspect that it's the second one. Which indicates that the lock-in was an intentional decision, and one that actually would make quite a bit of sense on reflection.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The foresight that using F35s for genocide could make some future US politician uppity.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think it is far more likely that some other country would fall out of our good graces than that the US government might become anti-Israeli-genocide.

(I am not saying you're wrong as far as the Israeli calculus or that factoring into their decision. Just that, as far as my own calculus, they don't really have any need to get concerned.)

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Biden made some meek complaints about 2000lb bombs being used in dense urban environment. Israel had to put up with a couple of weeks delay on more of them. They signed contract in 2010. Maybe DNC could have chosen Bernie instead of HRC (just kidding).

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh, hello! I didn't even notice it was you when I was replying. Good to see you found a way to shoehorn "Biden" and "DNC" and "Hillary" into this totally related topic. You did it real smoothly, too, it totally wasn't some random hard turn into a rant about US politics and your favorite politicians from the US to talk about. Nice.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Israel's genocidal ambitions were always there. Knowing the absolute control over US rulership and their ability to maintain genocide support through advances in mind control was not known in 2010.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

What?

The US rulership’s wildly successful tactics of mind control, specifically as pertains to Israel, really haven’t changed much since Noam Chomsky was writing about them in 1988.

That’s actually part of the problem: New techniques in mind control have been being developed, including organized mass shilling on social media, and the US government hasn’t really gotten the hang of how to do it effectively. As a result they’ve lost control to a large extent over the US populace. However, the people who are now gaining control are somehow even worse than the pro-genocide contingent who were in charge before.

All you have to do is reach out your hand, on Lemmy, and you can touch someone who’s openly in favor of genocide in Xinjiang or Ukraine. That’s new. The stuff Chomsky talks about seems kind of antiquated now. But it was definitely in full-scale operation, and easily predictable in its features, in 2010.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

you can touch someone who’s openly in favor of genocide in Xinjiang or Ukraine.

social media disinformation making smears in favour of warmongering is quite new, but extreme statism if not paid agents. The high divisiveness is part of the mind control techniques that are making most of the audience internalize evil. Those were not of certain effectiveness in 2010.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

social media disinformation making smears in favour of warmongering is quite new

Got it!

but extreme statism if not paid agents.

Not a sentence! Also nothing coherent. What are you trying to say here?

The high divisiveness is part of the mind control techniques

Absolutely true.

that are making most of the audience internalize evil

I don't think this part is true. Most of the tactic of divisiveness and chaos (deliberately lapsing into incoherence and hostility against the other speaker as a default) is to prevent people internalizing anything, I think that is separate from the more directed type of propaganda that's aiming to get people to adopt some particular worldview or other. A lot of it is just attacking the whole concept of developing an accurate and truthful worldview, or effectively communicating on the internet with other people, in general.

Those were not of certain effectiveness in 2010.

Are you saying the US populace wasn't manipulated to unconditionally support Israel in 2010? I would say the 2010 electorate was way more misled on that topic than the modern-day audience. There were always some outliers, but the way that pro-Palestinian views have become mainstream even to the point of impacting presidential campaigns, having direct respresentation in congress, that kind of thing, is new.

Again, the really effective manipulating in the modern day is in other directions. "Europe needs to quit this green energy nonsense and start buying fuel from Russia again." "Joe Biden betrayed the working class and the American people and as a faithful supporter of the left I'm not going to vote for Kamala Harris as a result." That kind of thing.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

extreme statism if not paid agents.

Mainstream media statism of smearing/warmongering on China and Russia is prevalent. That you would bring up an obsession of China's successful counterterrorism operation in Xinxiang through education, job creation, peace and prosperity results as something to obsess on, or categorize US provoked war on Russia through Ukraine proxy as a genocide, would be another examples of "to the last Ukrainian" US responsibility for the war, instead of Russia defending itself from NATO encroachment, if you insist on calling that a genocide. Genocide declarations are always political, and usually hate based instead of fact based politics.

I would say the 2010 electorate was way more misled on that topic than the modern-day audience.

Zionist/neocon bipartisan rulership was never a big electoral issue because Zionist oligarchs gave to both sides, and stayed away from strong opinions on which side was best for Israel. Supposedly not a major voting issue in 2024, even though Zionist supremacists shifted hard to Trump, and allied themselves with even project 2025 agenda, and media (all zionist) also shifted to Trump. There is obvious online resistance for obvious reasons, but mass media still decides winners.

The extreme social media shift, is the supposedly more intellectual left fanning warmongering against powers that can fight back. If the most republican/neocon/zionist DNC appointees favour warmongering, then so must "we". Europe going psychotic over peace prospects, and responding to economic extortion from US with more psychosis against Russia, is a crazy level at least as high as what comes from the right.

Europe needs to quit this green energy nonsense and start buying fuel from Russia again.

Europe policy is mostly escaping that "oil funded disinformation". Like Russian warmongering propaganda (meant for west), it's purpose is US citizen targeted disinformation. Europe doesn't fight back that FF dependence is not just Russia dependence but US dependence as well, but still behaves as though it realizes that. Europe doesn't realize that the Ukraine proxy war on Russia was a war on Europe. Embarrassing response to Nordstream for example, but your oil funded disinformation has a small effect on far right.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

education, job creation, peace and prosperity results

Europe going psychotic over peace prospects, and responding to economic extortion from US with more psychosis against Russia, is a crazy level at least as high as what comes from the right.

Absolutely gratifying. Keep talking, this is great stuff, I am highly entertained now.

https://ponder.cat/post/2069460

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

while criticism of Xinjiang policies can occur, the obsession level is for hateful warmonging points. Not a matter, relative to other attrocities, or my recognition of a somewhat balanced state action that a state addressed as best they can, and with positive outcomes. The obsession is what is bad faith. The hatred, and so violent/repressive reactions that need to feed that hatred, the bad faith.

Many non-pro Russia reasons to oppose manufacturing/provoking a losing war on Russia. It is stupid, self-destructive. It feeds more fossil fuel development from high prices. It loses elections from those high prices. It forces Russia to have increased military production by 70%, thereby making it scarier. The full colonial sycophancy in supporting US provocation and lies, not only makes the golden billion the true axis of evil, of course the next NATO dictator will slap the colonies harder and the sycophants will plead to lick the diaper as response.

The craziness over peace, including absurdities you have promoted, such as Russia is to blame for everything Trump threatens, including Greenland, is definitely social media amplifying warmongering stupidity, and further divisiveness and isolations of colonies with the world.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 6 days ago

Delightful lol. Thank you.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"The Pentagon Denies" means absolutely nothing. Their president lies 1000 times a day, and denies all kinds of wrongdoing where there are objective facts contradicting him.

Americans cannot be trusted, especially not when we are talking about military equipment that we may need to use to defend ourselves FROM THEM!

Just buy from the EU.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Honestly, it doesn't matter if it's possible or not. The very fact that key replacement parts of the jet can only be built in the US means that the very moment they chose not to sell those parts to Canada, the F35 is on a strict time limit before becoming the world's most expensive paperweight.

And that time limit isn't even very long. Maybe two years of normal use outside of a war, as little as a month or two during a war or any sort of foreign deployment.

We're kinda locked in for the first few planes, but despite cancellation fees, we need to replace our aging fleet with something from someone that won't throw a tantrum and erase a key component of our national defense with the swipe of a pen.

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

During the 1960s, the Australian Army bought the Swedish 84mm Carl Gustaf rocket launchers. It was believed perfect for bunker busting. However, Sweden refused to sell us the necessary munitions because we wanted them for the Vietnam War.

If you don't own the supply chain, you don't own the weapon system.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's actually pretty badass of Sweden...

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not arguing that it wasn't. Perhaps we shouldn't have bought shit we couldn't use?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Did it seem as though I was trying to argue with you?

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

No, you took a rhetorical statement literally.

I was conceding your point.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I really don't want to live in the times where you have to fork "OpenJet" to protect your freedom from religion, then build your copy in your garage, but we might get to that point...

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

OpenJet

LOL what year is it, 2036? How have you not moved on to "warplane" like the rest of us?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah, idk, I couldn't stand that they dropped the modular missile mount due to the disagreement with the OpenNuclear folks

I swear my fork, OpenDirigible is the way to go

[–] AnonomousWolf@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago

Open source everything!!

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

I mean, having a few of the plane is going to be handy... it's rare that your enemies will sell you their equipment to dissect, normally you have to capture it

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

and it has ultra poor flight time such that maintenance, and part replacements, are ultra frequent. Wouldn't surprise me if 3 flights is a maximum without Lockheed consultant required word.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago (4 children)

We should hack together a Canadian solution. The Canadian way is to replace the software with the one the Royal Canadian Navy was going to use for their warships, but planes and jets will be classified as upsidedown submarines with wheels capable of 500 knots.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Long before Musk's true character became widely known, this was my primary reason not to get a Tesla. In fact, Tesla's focus on proprietary software and post-purchase access to vehicles marked the sharp end to my favorable opinion of both him and the company.

Back when he was selling his EV vision and struggling to get the roadster into production, it hadn't even occurred to me that someone with such ambitions would build a closed platform. It would just be so out of line with the values supposedly driving him.

Nowadays I think my best shot at getting the sort of EV I want is either doing my own conversion or finding some small operation producing kit cars. But I need a truck or at least something that can haul heavy trailer loads up long hills.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This aligns exactly with what I expect is the real truth. I have doubts there's any actual killswitch because that'd be dumb - but a constant devouring of proprietary parts is absolutely the case.

I maintain that what actually happened is an airforce general bragged to Trump about how every F35 sold means decades of political dependence and service fees that would act like a kill switch to keep our allies in line and Trump heard the words kill switch and just ran with that.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›