Birds do not come with exploding lithium batteries or large metal bodies like brushless outrunner engines do!

I do not think you understand how tight the tolerances are in a modern turbofan engine. Birds are relatively soft and get chopped up by the blades. Metal bits (like a drone will have) can break off or bend a blade. The imbalance of a broken blade will cause damage to the turbine instantly, which will cascade into further damage. (clearances are MILLIMETERS, if that, so any bending is a serious issue)

I hope they're testing vs. drones today for current aircraft. The old turkey cannon test isn't enough.

There are limits on what turbine blades can handle. Stronger blades are thicker. Thicker blades are heavier and harder to spin up. As it is, the insides of those turbofans are the bleeding edge of material science!

Modern planes are designed to be resilient to bird strikes, but they aren't impervious, and a risk to safety will exists. Generally, when it comes to birds we just try to mitigate by reducing incidence rate (keeping birds away from airports), harden the planes, and then accept the residual rate.

With human caused issues, it's somewhat different since we do actually have more control of the situation. Or at least potential control.

Speaking of which, why do we keep calling hobbyist quadcopters and such "drones"? Using the same word for unmanned military bombers and (relatively) harmless toys seems a bit counter-productive.

Same reason my 550lb glider and a 100-ton B-52 are both "airplanes." It's a general word that encompasses a lot.

The problem isn't so much the use of the word "drones" but the lack of any further qualifiers on it. Sometimes it's evident from context (an article about military drone strikes isn't talking about a 2lb quadcopter, for example) but sometimes it's not, and I think writers need to be a little more careful with it.

The word "drone" means an aircraft without a pilot. That's been the case since militaries began testing anti-aircraft weaponry with unmanned aircraft, around World War II. The reason it is used specifically for small RC multirotors (as opposed to RC fixed wing planes or single-rotor helicopters) is that more specific terms like "multirotor" or "quadcopter" are less well-known.

Tell that to US Air 1549...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

Birds are still extremely dangerous to airplanes so it's clear that drones (or quadcopters or whatever you want to call them) which are typically larger, heavier, and much more dense will pose issues too.

The one instance that comes to mind of an airliner encountering an entire flock of birds, both engines were destroyed and they made a rather spectacular landing in the Hudson river.

Airliners are made to withstand bird strikes, but that doesn't mean they escape with no damage. I agree that there probably would have been no casualties if the plane had hit this drone, but it's not exactly a guarantee. It could have easily taken out an engine, and then a mistake or further equipment failure while handling the emergency could have caused a crash. The odds are good that everyone would be fine, but we're talking something like a mere 99.9% chance that everything would be fine (minus a couple million dollars to fix the engine), rather than the one-in-a-billion odds we're accustomed to seeing for air travel.

Contained engine failure is not really a good outcome on final approach.