Infantry troops still operate in 3D as they can/will direct mortars, air assets, etc.
In general, what you laid out is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. An infantry platoon applies fire and maneuver using all of its elements to "close with and destroy" a smaller element.
You emplace your weapons squad which has machine guns and other large weapons (e.g., mortars) that will keep your enemy's heads down. This allows your maneuver elements (i.e., assault squads) to maneuver to the enemy force.
In the case of missile defense, you have a limited set of complex and expensive bullets, and your enemy has cheap bullets. If you want to defend yourself, you're attempting to hit your opposition's bullets with your own bullets.
> you need to spend more than one defensive missile per attacking missile, because you might miss
It's almost always the case that you'll expend more than one interceptor per incoming missile as interception is probabilistic. In general, you can estimate the number of missiles you'll need to achieve a certain probability of interception with the following formula: 1 - (1.0 - sspk)^n, where sspk is the single shot probability of kill (i.e., successful interception with a single interceptor) and n is the number of interceptors.
I tried out quite a few products and brands. I've settled on opnsense running on a spare x86 based machine with an intel x550 T2 NIC that I got off of ebay. My only regret is not making this switch earlier.
There are many ways to get rid of bounds checking in Rust. One of those ways is just utilizing iterators. For alternatives, there's a bounds check cookbook you should checkout [0].
Thus far, I've written two libraries that utilize Rust, and they are usually associated with "high performance". I was able to exceed the performance of similar libraries written in C/C++.
To be perfectly clear, this doesn't mean Rust can replace C/C++ in every scenario, but the actual perf gap is narrower than some folks may be willing to admit.
Kinda:
Early last year, I had done a little work with direct intrinsics first, then investigated std::simd, but ran into the issue of swizzle_dyn needing to re-compile std. It was actually when I ran across https://shnatsel.github.io/improving-std-simd-swizzle-dyn/ that got me back into it.
This is quite amazing. Fearless SIMD is what finally allowed my FFT crate, PhastFT, to run on stable Rust [0]. PhastFT previously depended on Rust’s std::simd (as well as multiversion), which still requires nightly [1].
One of the main contributors to v1.0 of fearless_simd started out by helping me evaluate portable SIMD crates for PhastFT. Once we landed on fearless_simd, he ported PhastFT from std::simd to fearless_simd. We did find that more functionality was needed than fearless_simd offered at the time. So, he started contributing significantly to fearless_simd. It’s really rewarding to see how working on a hobby open source project can help improve the Rust ecosystem.
That makes the issue worse as the actual app/device likely just relies on querying some NTP pool for accurate time. Then that would mean the actual stratum 1 servers are not working right.
I was thinking of this in terms of aerial refueling.
It's always better to take off with less than a full tank of fuel. Once you're airborne, the aircraft can top off its tank to complete its journey. Of course, it may even be more economical to top off at multiple legs as the journey proceeds. To your point, a "reverse" refueling would also be ideal in order to lower the weight of the aircraft.
In certain contexts, it's already being done. It'd likely need to be much safer in order for civilian aircraft to carry out aerial refueling though.
I'm reminded of the OPM breach back in 2015 [0]. Practically everyone that even applied for a security clearance was compromised. In addition, millions of sets of fingerprints were recovered by the entity that carried out the hack.
I have 5Gbps symmetrical. I love having it, but the biggest use-case has been bragging about it to my colleagues. I haven't even had the full bandwidth available at my desk for a while now (I've had a terrible time terminating cat6a for reliable 10Gbe, so I'm usually on wifi), and it hasn't really bothered me much.
For me, with upgraded networking it's been huge. Much faster downloads and uploads, I can share more with family members, and when multiple people are using my bandwidth, no slowdowns. Most of my equipment is 2.5g, but still is a fairly significant upgrade, and the per month additional cost is $30/month so makes it worth it to me.
Infantry troops still operate in 3D as they can/will direct mortars, air assets, etc.
In general, what you laid out is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. An infantry platoon applies fire and maneuver using all of its elements to "close with and destroy" a smaller element.
You emplace your weapons squad which has machine guns and other large weapons (e.g., mortars) that will keep your enemy's heads down. This allows your maneuver elements (i.e., assault squads) to maneuver to the enemy force.
In the case of missile defense, you have a limited set of complex and expensive bullets, and your enemy has cheap bullets. If you want to defend yourself, you're attempting to hit your opposition's bullets with your own bullets.
reply