If you need easy distributed key management, modern SSH makes this fairly straightforward with some config values. It supports executing a program to get the SSH key at login time, dynamically. This way you can still maintain local certificates for fallback, and you can plug into anything. For example in the past I wrote a simple golang based app that loaded all of the SSH pubkeys from my organizations github, for users in a specific team.
The part I thought was interesting was how Israel “secured rights to modify” their F35 deliveries. Like… what kind of airplane that costs 100s of millions requires additional contracts for “replace component” rights? How insane is this contract? Its so unreasonable to assume that the value of the fighter to the manifacturers is only in the maintenance. Its like the BMW heater subscription, only for national defence.
during development and going into first flight, it was fairly open discussion that israel 'was' an original partner whom was funded by usa, and thus why israeli flag was not on the a/c during promo but israel and their tech companies had input into development.
many times it was also discussed that israeli pilots would ask to have their engines deliver above spec thrust, sort of like tunning your turbo car... it created a whole logistical black hole but it certainly was technically possible. perhaps 15 years later someone finally figure out how to cater to that market.
When you have the only working 5th-generation multirole fighter on the export market then you can drive a pretty hard bargain. That's how monopolies work.
Some partners are more equal than others. There are 3+ program levels depending on how much funding they put into the initial development and how many units they committed to order. This impacts the level of access they get. The UK is the only Level 1 partner. Italy and Netherlands are at Level 2. Others are down at Level 3 (except Israel, which had sufficient political influence to negotiate a special deal despite a relatively small investment).
I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
> I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
Your personal opinion is proven to be absurd and baseless for the single fact that the UK, a level 1 partner, was very vocal in its frustration for the "lack of U.S. commitment to grant access to the technology that would allow the UK to maintain and upgrade its F-35s without U.S. involvement."
You need to face the fact that as of now the US is an unreliable and untrustable partner, and depending on them for defense, even when it's to meet their end of the treaties, is extremely risky.
Are we still pretending that any contract with the USA is binding ? Lets assume , trump kicks the bucket and vance succeeds him. Do you think a contract with Israel is still save, when a raging anti semite (who jumped selensky partlly because of that) is in power ? There are no laws, contracts and recourse in amedieval world. Sorry to all the unemployed lawyers
>But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
Weird logic. US is equally unrealiable no matter what level you bought yourself in to.
> But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap.
Except it's nuts to pretend like this system hasn't been working out great for the US. Competent leaders have expanded it for a reason.
> Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
I think that Trump/Vance have run their mouth about the UK in roughly the same ways that they have about Canada and Ukraine and your claim is far from obvious. We have leaders who are stupid and will trash a good thing without a second thought.
Well, no, unless they're also insisting on annexing the UK, and crippled UK military hardware while they're in an existential war. I haven't seen such reported.
I don't see how your point is relevant to the current topic which is narrowly about how investment (or not) into the F-35 program relates to input into the direction of the program.
The UK is a Tier 1 partner. The administration seems like it's one Xanax-fueled dream away from saying the UK should be the 52nd state and suspending technical support in the exact same way the US has done to Ukraine.
That's the relationship between the two. The problem is not that these nations weren't Tier 1 partners. The problem is that the current administration cannot be negotiated with in the most damning sense of "these people can't even be trusted to work for their own self-interest."
As the UK is also a Level 1 partner if they were so inclined they could provide the resources necessary to allow lower level partners to operate and maintain their F-35s?
No, neither the USA or UK are really independent on this program. They are mutually dependent on each other.
The USA does have all of the technical data packages so in theory we could probably get domestic suppliers to make the components we currently get from the UK but it would take several years. The reverse isn't true, though. The UK simply no longer has the capacity to support such a complex program on their own. They sacrificed their defense industry years ago and accepted dependence on the USA so that they could fund social programs.
I'm not suggesting that the UK attempts to make all the parts that are made in partner countries, merely that they have access to the information required to do so.
If that's the case they maybe they would be able to help the other partner countries develop the parts that they would otherwise require America to make.
I have read that the base price of a Boeing/Airbus jet is typically negotiated below zero, based on the decades of maintenance contracts and spare parts that will have to be purchased over its lifetime.
the above is absolutely true on the commercial engine side, especially for government subsidized companies such as RR... there is a big contention against RR's practices but most mfgs still give the engines at a very large discount, not negative. i don't think it's true for the actual airframe, the numbers would be completely off and airframe does not have the same going back to the factory for refurb requirements.
Probably not negative, but component maintenance is a huge longtail revenue stream for avionics. Pretty much every electronic and mechanical component has to be pulled periodically and tested, which costs, and replaced or refurbished. My first proper job, that's how they made the majority of their revenue. They lost money on the development effort, maybe broke even after initial sales, and profited off the fact that aircraft are kept around for decades and every 5 years their part had to be pulled and sent back to them for testing and replacement.
The more Airbus or Boeing own inside the aircraft, the more they can play into this model. 787 is a great example of Boeing hurting themselves through their outsourcing, but greatly assisting their suppliers.
yes, what you're talking about is true for the supplier side, but it's still not accurate for A/C mfg. operators own the a/c and all the associated bits that would end up getting sent out for service, and they're the ones that are paying service fees to those OEM suppliers that supplied the A/C in the first place.
these day's there's not many "parts" outside of fuselage and flight IP that someone like Boeing/EMB, etc. owns that wasn't outsourced:engines, air data system, actuations, cabin, flight controls, landing gear, etc.. THere's nothing really that the A/C mfg could "service" to ever make back a 300mil airframe. the A/C sell for the fixed cost, sometimes the operator gets to select their own engine, but othewise they buy it for cash, not for future services. boeing and other A/Cs would not survive on maintenance plans because there's very little they actually maintain.
Maintenance is extraordinarily important for the long term usefulness of a fighter jet. There is even an official metric tracked called "maintenance man-hours per flight hour." The F-35, which was even designed to try to minimize this (while still being stealthy and lethal), requires ~5 hours of maintenance for every hour the jet is in the air. If you get cut off from parts your Air Force will be almost unable to fly in a few months.
Pretty much all modern fighters require replacement parts from the original manufacturer. There are not enough fighter jets to support an aftermarket parts manufacturer, especially one that could exist without getting sued by Lockheed, Northrop, and the like.
The main technical issue is that you have to reverse engineer the parts if you don't have original drawings and didn't get a legal license to make your own. All the technical bits on an F-35 have anti-tamper features designed to make reverse engineering almost impossible (in case a jet gets shot down over enemy territory the USA doesn't want the enemies to have an easy time figuring out the weak points or finding bugs to exploit).
If you want to see what fighter jets without legal repairability license turns into, look at Iran. The sanctions placed on Iran have meant that they've been stringing their inventory of jets along for decades without official parts. They cannibalize other jets, buy black market parts, and cobble together their own solutions to keep their Air Force going. Check out the Sedjil, which is a modified SAM, that they created to put on their F-14s because the USA stopped providing Phoenix missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile). Trying to keep an Air Force going without official permission is really challenging.
But Israel's case is a little different from the above discussion- negotiating for the rights to modify isn't really about replacement parts. They aren't that concerned that the USA will cut them off. Their negotiation is more because they want to put some of their own systems on the jet. In older 4th generation jets, integration of new systems could be straightforward; you can put it in an external pod with a standardized mounting pylon and standardized data bus. On the F-35 you obviously want to avoid hanging a bunch of extra pods off the jet, so you need to get engineering drawings and software details to figure out how to internally integrate your stuff. Because reverse engineering is hard, they pushed to get this technical information legally. The only time this effort is worth it is when you think your country's equipment outperforms what the original F-35 can do. You need a decent tech to beat the stock F-35 systems, but Israel probably has a few areas where they can do that. But even with the right to modify the F-35, Israel will be heavily reliant on original parts for maintenance. They do not have a big enough industrial base to make all the parts needed for the jet.
There are not enough fighter jets to support an aftermarket parts manufacturer, especially one that could exist without getting sued by Lockheed, Northrop, and the like.
This certainly applies to the aftermarket activities in the Westl, but entities doing that in Iran, Russia or Ukraine would not be liable to such measures. The question is more about technical capability.
> If you want to see what fighter jets without legal repairability license turns into, look at Iran. The sanctions placed on Iran have meant that they've been stringing their inventory of jets along for decades without official parts. [...]
True. Then again I see the ability for Iran to do this as a consequence of the effect of the sanctions and determination to make the best of domestic engineering potential. Quite a feat, I would say. The country has chemicals, electronics, mechanical engineering - and it trying to use it to create their own competing version of military platforms, starting with tanks, airplanes, drones, etc.
> The main technical issue is that you have to reverse engineer [...] All the technical bits on an F-35 have anti-tamper features designed to make reverse engineering almost impossible [...]
Very interesting! Almost impossible is a strong combination of words. Could you perhaps point me forward to some examples of such anti-tamper features?
Israel heavily modifies all of their jets I think. Supposedly stuff like allowing the engines to run at a dangerous thrust level because of situations like “Get there now or you won’t have a home to land in”.
For reference, this is called 'battleshort'. Overriding normal/safe operating limits in order to escape a situation that would destroy the vehicle anyway.
> Get there now or you won’t have a home to land in
Really? A country that engages with neighbours that are barely able to send primitive missiles, while its last generation (US) jets drop bombs straight on their capital cities any time they want, with total impunity? And you still repeat this "poor existentially threatened country" propaganda?
False. You can see this from the number of losses they suffered in their military campaigns: a tiny number of casualties compared to those inflicted to their enemies. Besides, it has been clear for many decades that the US would do absolutely anything to protect Israel, which means that the forces Israel can count on to defend itself in case of a real existential threat are basically those of the entire USA.
He is referring to highly specific types of situations, not speaking in a generic sense. It’s not about propaganda, it’s just a simple consequence of the region they’re in.
As a side note, terrorists successfully attack highly developed economies all the time. Having good jets doesn’t magically negate that possibility.
Youre also forgetting another component which is that the instrastructure gets torn down or stolen because it has market value. The replacement, maintenance, and security of wired grids is likely higher.
I was at my local Home Depot last weekend and the rep told me that just a few weeks prior, a couple people stole a couple rolls of electrical wire (romex) and the value was over $4,000 because of the cost of the copper in it.
It's probably worth even less if you have to resell wire to recycling businesses of the "no questions about where you got it" variety. Are these wire rolls large enough to contain a thousand pounds of copper?
The fitness function that would govern that evolution would be new though. We’d be intentionally optimizing for brains that work that way with some new social or technical construct. Like if we said “autism is the new exposed ankles” and suddenly had many more babies who also demonstrated that trait. Or if we had access to technology that would select for that outcome, gattaca style.
Sometimes things I post get flagged by users and I get it, fair enough. This time I can only think of malicious reasons.
The only people who I can imagine flagging this post are Meta PR, or users who are bringing their politics into a non-political post. If anyone has any other reasonable explanations, I would love to hear them.
Looks like the title was edited, original title: Facebook Is Censoring 404 Media Stories About Facebook's Censorship
I didn't see any such pattern in the data. It was flagged by quite a few users, none of whom showed any obvious pattern like affiliation with a company or a political slant. (Edit: I mean none of the ones I looked at. There were too many to look at them all.)
We can only guess why users flag things. In this case, I don't have a good guess, other than that the article title is baity, so I replaced it with more neutral language from the subtitle, and (partly) rolled back the flags.
The flaggers may be correct, in any case, because this thread is noticeably terrible.
I'm sure you've considered this feature, but since flagging is such a heavyweight (in terms of ranking impact) activity, shouldn't a flagger need to at least articulate (via text or a drop-down menu) why they are flagging it? Even vague choices like "Site guideline violation," "Spam," "Astroturfing," "Political flame bait" might offer some of the missing insight.
Mainly the bureaucratic nature of it. Preserving HN's minimalism has been a priority because it's the kind of thing that's so easily lost; like a frog boiling itself.
Yea, I get the hesitance to invest in this. Nobody is going to select/admit reasons like "Because flagging is a mega-downvote and I don't like this story getting attention," even if it's the real reason. We don't know how accurate or actionable Slashdot's drop-down choice moderation was, either. Even if people are honest about their intentions, what is actionable? Not much I guess.
I'm surprised you'd think that - Facebook moderation changes and the same tired back and forth about 'free speech' have been some of the worst threads for me.
I can usually power through the RSS feed pretty quickly. My reader shows only titles, so I swipe on a lot of stuff that doesn’t seem relevant. I can then take my time with the good stuff.
Indeed. Some of the most interesting stories on HN never make it past the initial filter. I've seen great posts slip by in obscurity only to get hundreds of votes and hit the front page weeks or months later. There's a lot indeterminism in what makes it to the front page(s) and what doesn't.
I was cheekily implying that the well paid Facebook developers flagged this article as it forces them to confront the issue that their employer is generally a bad actor, and their employment contributes to that.
Hardly a new take but I think this being flagged so quickly is a concerning problem.
I'll confess to taking it personally; apparently I still need to work on that!
Don't know if you saw my other post about this, but the flagging behavior looked normal to me. I didn't see any patterns in the flagging history of those users, such as flagging posts about FB or some political position.
They arent clowns at all.
Ita a totally different engineering problem and you cant just spin up live streaming capacity on demand. The entire system end to end isnt optimized for live streams yet.
There are a few components to this that I can see being frustrating.
One is that many people here likely had a more free roam childhood and this kind of behaviour from law enforcement and society in general is quite peculiar and off-putting. Being socially outcast because I let my child walk to the store is one thing. Being actually arrested and threatening to remove the parent of a child in the name of their safety is another.
Another part is the data / justification for this behaviour. From 1999 to 2010 at least, it seems that motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of teenagers dying. Then it's homicide and suicide. Homicides are mostly committed by people the person knows. I don't have a full complete data set here but ~85% of homicides against youth are committed by family members or people that know the family. Not strangers. It's not to say you should't protect your kids from strangers, just that... walking to the store isn't that.
A16Z seems to do a little more 'investor branding' than other firms and this is part of that strategy. I would call this piece more of a backstop to explain their donations to the Trump campaign more than anything else. Their existing portfolio contains companies that have high private market valuations but are sort of getting big enough to be noticed by regulators.
It shouldn't be surprising that anyone would play with all of the levers and dials they have at their disposal and they're wealthy enough to play the "don't
like the rules: change them" game. All that being said, the piece is sort of tone deaf and just written poorly, but I cannot say I can argue with a VC firm going to bat for its portfolio companies, little tech or otherwise.
