Thanks for this suggestion, I'll have to keep an eye on this the next time I need a router. Definitely on the pricey side, but given that it's fully open source, that's a con I can live with.
There was no increase of nuclear risk because of drones, and no need to increase the protection of the powerplants, for the very simple reason that there is nothing a drone can do against meters of reinforced concrete protecting the reactor. A drone big enough to do more than scratch the paint would be classified as a cruise missile, and that risk was understood since before the first nuclear powrplant was turned on.
>So their operators claim. But it's not clear why that would be true and I haven't seen any numbers to demonstrate it either. Have you?
Telegram had to survive Russia's attempt to ban it, so it evolved a number of strategies: using push notifications to deliver IP-adresses of not-yet-blocked servers, using socks-proxies, the evolution of the MTProto Proxy encrypted protocol, and finally resorting to steganography to mimic ordinary https traffic, thus evading the DPI.
The attempts of the state censorship agency to block the telegram servers were hilarious to watch: at one point they had 0.5% of the IPv4 address space banned, and broke a lot of stuff (AWS, Google, DigitalOcean, OVH, etc). Telegram was still working, of course.
IMO, the legal network and a reputation of always suing airlines are the most important things in this line of business.
For example, if you are seriously delayed while departing from an EU airport, you are entitled to a compensation. Inside the EU this mostly works, but consider the case when you live outside the EU and the non-EU airline basically tells you: "sue us".
I'm currently using the services of one of their competitors to try and extract 250 euros from one small airline that thinks that because they're outside the EU they can delay a flight for two days and not pay the legal amount.
[1]https://aireon.com/