If the system was used to control something it was obvious.
There would be some kind of main / idle loop. When this was running, you could see the pattern in the data buss and in the address buss. The loop of code would not be many instructions, they would all be together, so the pattern on the address buss would be quickly repeating.
If you had a slow peripheral, you could see the ISR getting called. It would be at a different address than the main loop, and you could see it flash periodically, like every time a line went to the printer.
As an operator of the system, you had a unique perspective of watching the program run as the system operated; if it was data processing it would not mean much but in a control system it was uncanny.
Get those rich people out of the private jets and into the supersonic ones. Then the rich people currently in first class can move into the private jets.
Eventually, that means that there will be some seats in the back of the regular plans for everyday wage slaves.
Those tiny fpv drones pack a tiny punch. Sure, it will destroy a current generation Chevy Equinox.
But two weeks after the war starts, countermeasures will be created. The vehicles will be changed to make them harder to find, and harder to kill. A small drone will be rendered ineffective by small countermeasures.
As much as I dislike the current US administration, Ford moving to making missiles and other military hardware is a good idea. They sure can't build a cost effective vehicle; yet there is a lot more potential profit in a Standard Missile, not to mention less competition.
USAF did lose an AWACS plane to a drone attack. Why? It was out in the open. I would think some minimal concealment / camouflage would have made an easy drone target into an impossible one. Same with the early warning radars that were destroyed; someone was asleep in command not posturing these systems such that they were at least slightly harder to find and hit.
Overall, the drones were militarily a bunch of mosquito's. None of the US allies 'enjoyed' having civilian targets hit by the Iranian drones, but the military impact was minor at best.
Unless you want to put boots on the ground, you send missiles and drop bombs.
The Iranian drones would have been a lot more of a problem if they were harassing ground troops on the way to Tehran.
(does the US need counter drone systems? yes, absolutely. is air superiority dead? not at all)
Strongly agreed. It is a signal. I did an analysis once at the end of the year. Work group of about 45 engineers. The CM system had a lot of steps, and work could get bounced around, but there was a step where some one "resolved" a software activity. Bug fix or new requirements, it did not matter. This step was when someone actually completed work and put into into the dev stream.
A quick DB query and the variance was substantial. A couple of people had over a hundred. About 10 had 2. For the year. The ramp up was slow, average was 8 to 10 a year.
Dig a little deeper. Those at the top were 'group leads' not only did they do IC work, they also got stuck with all 'paperwork' on the problem work packages. They had 'power', so they could override various things. So, they were doing a lot of work, and taking care of things. Good signal, matches what one would expect.
Those at the bottom. One of them had effectively been a 'systems engineer'; all of their time was working on requirements with the customer, making powerpoint, etc. Important work, so that signal was inverse of what it originally showed.
A couple were in the middle that had great reputations for technical expertise. They were spending almost full time in training / mentoring / very hard problems mode. Highly valuable, but not shown by looking at these numbers.
All the rest? 80% of the work was being done by 20% of the people. We could have dropped about 12 heads and barely noticed.
The problem is, you could not take action on this measure. It gave you a place to start, but you needed to know more about what was going on day to day.
There would be some kind of main / idle loop. When this was running, you could see the pattern in the data buss and in the address buss. The loop of code would not be many instructions, they would all be together, so the pattern on the address buss would be quickly repeating.
If you had a slow peripheral, you could see the ISR getting called. It would be at a different address than the main loop, and you could see it flash periodically, like every time a line went to the printer.
As an operator of the system, you had a unique perspective of watching the program run as the system operated; if it was data processing it would not mean much but in a control system it was uncanny.