I'm unsure if you're referring to open-source software or hardware, but for software pfSense [1] and OpenWrt [2] are both popular open-source routers.

[1] https://www.pfsense.org/ [2] https://openwrt.org/

If, as you're saying, a complex system of corruption has affected where public money is spent, isn't that actually a great reason to question the legitimacy of police budgets and consider pushing for that money to be spent elsewhere?

> In the past, the "Internet speed record" was measured in units such as "terabit meters-per-second":

I like this unit better, because then a jetliner full of hard drives could be a valid competitor.

Which is exactly why it was chosen, the 'purpose' of networks is moving data from point A to point B so the 'goodness' of networks is how much data from point A to point B and how far away is point A from point B.

Then the Internet became a transport for time sensitive data (movies, voice, Etc.) and so the latency between bits gets wedged in sometimes.

An increase in efficiency does not necessarily mean a reduction in total consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I've always struggled with the application of Jevon's paradox to decision making. Does it mean we shouldn't try to make our usage of scarce resources more efficient?

I think it just means you have to do more than simply make things efficient. You also have to have some way to minimize total costs.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/ reports that 1 in 1.67 browsers send the DNT header, so the best option fingerprinting-wise might be to leave it on, at least information-wise.

Of course, that ratio will likely change when Safari drops support for DNT entirely. See discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19101156

They send the header, but with which value? I probably didn't express myself well enough, I want my browser to send the "DNT not configured" value.

Sorry, I left that part out. My browser sends DNT=1, and I get 1/1.67, which should mean that 1/1.67 browsers send DNT=1. This means that the total share of browsers that send the DNT header at all is at least 1/1.67, but probably higher.

> As regards health, I have nothing useful to say as I have little experience of illness.

I interpreted this sentence as a disclaimer that what follows is explicitly not advice.

Maybe the making of the thing deprived no one, but once it's made it could always be given to someone else, so owning it means that someone else who could own it doesn't.

What do you mean by a MITM phishing attack?

U2F credentials are tied to a particular domain, and so do not rely on the user making sure they are on the correct website. As such, they are not susceptible to typical credential phishing attacks.

Things like this: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/157756/mitm-att...

This is assuming an owned machine. Not the easiest attack but still possible. Obviously things like Google Authenticator (while good) are even more susceptible to MITM phishing.

If the machine is owned it's trivial to dig the cookie jar once you're logged in.