I would also like to know how a large, expensive, relatively cumbersome, vehicle can possibly defend itself against hordes of cheap, mass produced flying explosives.
Soft kill systems (e.g. MUSS2.0), hard kill systems (Trophy, Strike Shield), independent remote-controlled weapon stations with anti-air capabilities (KNDS' Leopard 2-A-RC3.0 demonstrator for example came with one with a 30x113mm calibre).
(Bonus points for the smaller profile and the lower weight at the same or better protection level enabled by using remote turrets...)
The war in Ukraine is more defined by the lack of high-tech to neutralize drones (vehicles and air-defense being old -or available in very small numbers-, air-defense in Russia also not even close to performing to the standards they should on paper) than by the drones themselves. Future military planning will be more defined by adding those anti-drone capabilities already existing but not yet widely used than by mass spammed cheap drones themselves.
(For reference: Maybe you remember the Bayraktar hype in the beginning days of Russia's invasion... and then it just died quickly and silently. Because the actual factor was not the drone itself but the initial failure to close the gap exploited by the drone. And then Russia adapted by moving air-defense capable of handling those drones closer.)


While I support the general advice, "very Windows-esque UI" is not a benefit for less tech-literate people. It's the former Windows-users that conditioned themselves to expect Windows UI with all it's shortcomings. The average elderly relative who doesn't use anything but ~3 pre-installed programs does not care normally and can get much eaiser and more intutive UIs than those close to Windows.