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.)

Yes, the system expects regular updating. But Arch is entirely pragmatic. What has enough popularity and a mainainer to do the work will be kept in the repositories, even more if you include the AUR (also stuff moving between them when popularity and/or demand of packages changes). And because it is constantly moving on with new packages a lot is kept in parallel: There are a lot of packages in the repos in different versions, one being cutting edge, one being the lower version dependency for other packages not upgraded yet.

For reference: Yes, Arch for example expected you to update to the new open source NVIDIA drivers the day NVIDIA dropped the Volta, Pascal and Maxwell cards (GTX 1080 and below). But at the same moment the nvidia-580xx driver was introduced to the AUR, including explicitly being supported officially still. And the same happened every time a set of hardware got dropped (nvidia-470, nvidia-390, nividia-340), still kept unofficially for legacy reasons as long as it's technically feasible. So I can in fact still run graphics cards from 2006 20 years later...

Or for another example: Yes, Arch runs kernel 7.0.12 right now and updates the kernel on a weekly basis. Yet it also has the LTS version 6.18 (guaranteed to get support until end of 2028 upstream) fully supported in the repos. And again, including the AUR I can still run the oldest still officially supported (until end of this year) long-term-support Linux kernel 5.10.

And those are basically the most extreme examples in terms of losing support, one being the constantly developed core of the whole system, the other on proprietary drivers of a private company. Otherwise the amount of 1990s tech still support by Linux is actually insane.

Written on an ancient toaster (AMD FX series from 2011, gtx750ti from 2014, non-EFI motherboard) running Arch... which nowadays runs -given: older- games with better performance than years ago, because "the newest stuff" does introduce constant improvements and optimisation instead of new drains on your ressources like you are used to because they want you to buy new stuff.

Also both Ukraine and Russia currently have some really strong air defence systems right now

Ukraine's strongest air defense is new systems in very low amounts and short supply, Russia's air defense is constantly failing to meet even a fraction of the capabilities they should have on paper.

In exercise with Ukraine NATO soldiers showed that they have serious issues dealing with drones.

But there is a massive difference between "the future of war is cheap mass produced drones" and "the future of war is closing the gap that cheap mass produced drones like to exploit". The 'but tanks are obsolete"-opinion is very popular with clueless people arguing the former.

Tanks won't be dead until there is another system that can fullfil it's role. It's easy as that.

Everything else is just adaption to changing threat environments while doing it's job on the battle field. Which specifically means more active defenses over passive armor, so soft- and hard-kill APS and probably an highly-automated small calibre remote weapon station.

Also, no matter how hard people try to delude themselves: The war in Ukraine is NOT a modern war shaping future combat. It's primarily characterised by obsolete static and trench warfare with both sides severely lacking capable air defense and experience in proper combined arms warfare. Then Russia aggrevates that situation even further as "We can't compete on the high-tech end of things so we drag everyone down to our level via a massive electronic warfare campaign" is part of their main strategy since the cold war.

That's the reason drones are so successful there, because they perfectly exploit an existing gap of lacking air defenses and a very taxing environment that benefits cheap mass spam over electronically impaired high-precsion tech. That's also the reason the Ukrainian side learning and adapting more quickly will win this.

The actual aspect of this war shaping future combat is detailed information on how to not make the same mistakes and close the existing gap cheap drones so perfectly fit into. So no, the tank isn't even close to obsolete. The next generation will show APS alongside limited in-build anti-air capabilities (small calibre gun against small drones probably alongside a few missiles that can double against out of range/LOS ground targets) and be accompanied by more dedicated anti-air assets once again (see: how those old German Gepards that were designed for that support role back then performed in Ukraine against drones half a century more modern)... and by IFVs nearly as well protected and basically being their flanking protection against infantry/ATGMs (see: active and passive protection levels of modern IFVs and their precisely timed burst-capable auto-guns - basically oversized battle field shotguns to clear the flanks off mobile but fragile threats).

Sure, if you simplify actual reality ad absurdum your strawman "suddenly" looks different 😂

In reality you can be for age restrictions yet acknowledge that the planned implementation is pure bullshit and obviously not meant to work and just a pretense for yet another surveilance escalation. But that would require actual thought and arguments instead of treating everything with polemics usually reserved for the blind loyality in team sports, so this probably goes over your head.

Right-wing populist and neo-fascist won't close one of the main pipelines for right-wing and fascist recruitment? How surprising... 🥱

Das wäre in der Tat ein super Deal

...für Atomkraft-Verhältnisse zumindest. Aber du must sowohl bei Bauzeit als auch bei Kosten wohl eher nochmal 'nen Faktor von 2-3 einrechnen.

Selbes Problem: dafür müssten sie ihr Hirn wieder einschalten.

Absolut niemand hat heutzutage das Problem, dass ihm Informationen fehlen. Am Willen, ihm gegebene Informationen auch zur Kenntnis zu nehmen oder gar nach ihnen zu handeln, hapert es jedoch.

Das halte ich für eine Falschmeldung. In der Union sorgt sicher nicht die menschenfeindliche Äußerung für Entsetzen, sondern nur, dass sie bekannt wurde und Konsequenzen hat.

Und ich fürchte sogar, selbst bei den Konsequenzen wägen sie in Wahrheit die negativen Reaktionen gegen die dadurch höhere Attraktivität für Nazis gegeneinander ab.

Sobald der Wähler anfängt, sein Hirn zu benutzen und nicht immer und immer wieder die selben bekannterweise korrupten Menschenfeinde wählt. Also wohl nie...

Well... People finding and disclosing security flaws are often much closer to hackers than what happened with the AUR.

Calling people adopting outdated and orphanded packages hackers is like calling the guy that finds a banknote on the ground a bankrobber.

The term "hacked" seem to have lost all meaning...