esc

Slop skeptics, lol.

Well, you actually need exits unless your plan always was 'die in a bunker without exits'.

hover drones aren't all that cheap and require either very good ~~crpa~~ gnss antenna, or some kind of visual inertial odometry. Or you'll get althold at best, which isn't really hovering more like flying with the wind. Flying drones are effective because they are cheap, hovering drones (the multi-use ones) are prone to dying to kamikadze drones, they are big, loud, hot, and not very good at transporting things compared to rovers (logistics as you mentioned), one successfull delivery by rover compares to 10-20 deliveries by flying drone.

Still not clear to me how exactly flying drone superiority when traversing hard terrain = bipedal robots are a good idea.

You don't really 'need' to open the door, it's enough to destroy all exits. Question is how cheap you can make biped drone and how cheap you can make a small rover capableof moving 10-15 kilos of explosives. Rover can be made as cheap as <$500 or so.

Artillery includes rocket artillery, but even 'regular' gun artillery can shoot for tens of kilometers with specialised shells, while being mobile at that.

Small ground drone on fiber optics that carry an antitank mine or a bomb can open doors alright. Also various artillery systems work great against static targets.

Objects are carried by UGVs, they can carry 200-300 kilograms while being pretty small, small UGVs can carry up to 100 kilos with size of ~1m in every dimension. Unless you can explain to a very expensive and smart robot what you need to rotate and where and how to operate tools given, you'll need a very competent pilot for these robots which with high probability would still be worse than dumbest of humans because they lack agility and require a lot of supportive infra to operate. Rich nations probably would try to make humanoid robots (like they did with robodogs) with questionable success.

Desktop PCs are really small part of the whole, far more people rely on working linux systems to work, like orders of magnitude more.

Far more people compared to what?

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension.

I said who cares if google throws something to spam, that's not my problem, that's google and recepients problem. I'm running my own email server, I've been running corporate mailservers and personal before. You don't control other peoples infrastructure and google is by far not the worst gatekeeper in email world, insane whitelist configurations, spamhaus, whatever weirdness like recieving only from specific subdomains. Running email isn't hard, just stop being a perfectionist about some metric that shouldn't be measured to start with.

Who cares? I'm not selling things, I have no idea where email goes on someone else's server, spam, straight to bin, whatever, recipient gets it and reads it or not. If they are so not interested in my message that they never read it, well, life goes on nothing was lost.

It never was a question can/can't and always was is it economically and politically viable to continue $current_war. usa is certainly capable, there seems to be little will to actually fight in a war beyond showing off 'we are still cool and powerful believe us'.

Some U.S. military officers, though, argue that drones are particularly deadly in this war because it has reached a stalemate with little battlefield movement. In a war of maneuver, the tank and other armor would come back into its own, they say.

That's the neat part, you can't maneuver, that's why armor is virtually non-existent in engagements beyond being an artillery or slowly moving transport.

'Hedgehog' style defence for tanks and other armor actually works, and it takes a lot of effort to kill one of those, but they aren't doing anything interesting and you can't leave it alive unless there is total fire control on your side.

I can, they are supported by owrt.