b1t

You might want to give this a read, then re-read my original post. I never said there wasn't a backdoor, just that it would be stupid.

That's not what I said, at all.

PS - I work in InfoSec (CISSP). Please tell me more about what I've been doing for past 20 years lol

I really need to re-watch that show. But I can't stand all of the useless bickering lol

BAE Systems (in the UK) has full F-35 manufacturing capabilities. The Brits could tell them to toss it any day now and I wouldn't be surprised, with the way things are going.

Not a fan of speculation and we're likely to never see any official documentation, considering it's a military aircraft.

But I will say: If it is true, it's probably the dumbest thing you could do to an advanced fighter like this. Just imagine that you're in a conflict, then the enemy hacks your command and control systems and disables/hijacks all of your aircraft. Yeah, that's pretty dumb.

Even the Star Trek writers realized this sort of thing is a bad idea.

I was tired and it felt ranty after reading it back. Was also super off-topic. So I just deleted it.

Personally I just check the AP every morning and watch PBS News Hour over dinner if it's on. But I will poke around on Hacker News and NewsNow if I'm bored, which does have an option to check multiple sources like you mentioned (it's the stacked orange squares thing next to every headline). Both are 100% free.

And +1 for Ars Technica, I see them writing about right to repair a lot. Which I'm a huge supporter of.

Those were just examples, I wasn't trying to limit the scope, hence the "etc. etc." bit at the end. My point was to verify for yourself. Statements and events can be verified in their own ways. Such as video footage or the minutes recorded during government hearings.

Oh, no doubt. The world is way to complex to stay on top of everything these days. No one person can do it all.

My point was that Ground News doesn't really provide anything that other news aggregate sites do -- other than "left" and "right" labels for the outlets. Which is a really shitty way to look at the world when you could just pull the original source for whatever you're interested in. Especially considering that it's a paid service. You shouldn't have to pay someone to spoon feed you which lens to use just to keep yourself informed.

I usually avoid speculation and unverifiable "sources" as well. Maybe if the source provided docs to backup their claim and the docs have been vetted. But when it's an entire article based on "trust me bro", I just can't do it.

This makes me feel like I'm being left out of an inside joke. I don't like it lol

This was YEARS ago. Haven't been on there in over a decade now ;)