They did what most "lean startups" did. They made an MVP, and iterated from there. The only difference is that their target audience were gamers who hivemind way more than most other markets.
The way I see it is that if Firefox's userbase dwindles because of this, either we get our Firefox with opt-out telemetry or... Firefox dies. And now we have a Chrome monopoly.
So 100 years ago, a guy kidnapping your daughter (just an example of anything that could only be resolved by you knowing where you daughter was) isn't a serious worry, since that's a 0.01% risk as opposed to the 2% risk your daughter gets sick with whatever and dies.
Now, it's that same 0.01% risk compared to a 0.00003% risk thanks to advancements in modern medicine, so we worry about it much more.
If they're frustrated with Sublime with practical reasons (i.e. performance, plugins, extensibility), I don't think Code or Atom would satisfy them any better. You could make the argument for vim or emacs there, but those have been around much longer than Sublime, I doubt Sublime's eating much into those users in the first place.
If they're frustrated with Sublime due to not being FOSS, nothing I guess. But again, those people would have largely switched over already.
If you have a patent against Facebook, let's face it, that patent claim is going to be bigger than React ever can be. The cost of switching out a JS framework would be well worth the benefits of taking a legitimate patent claim on FB.
"A man was arrested for walking." and "A man was arrested for walking and aiming a rifle at a woman." are clearly different actions.
A lawyer went to prison, for illegal statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. These illegal statements that would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
I can't understand this fetish of generalizing to the point of total vagueness. Case-by-case analysis is just as important now as ever.
Free speech necessarily does have limits, obviously, otherwise I could claim my ddosing your web server or my uploading of CP was simply me expressing my free speech.
Does my free speech only end when my actions infringe other laws? Or should my free speech overrule the consequences other laws? People want to claim free speech is a moral perogative, not just some words written into a Constitution, but you can't mix unlimited free speech with the real world, at some point, idealism has to give.
And I won't say GoDaddy, Google or Cloudflare necessarily should be the ones to draw that line, but someone has to. Something had to give after Charlottesville, and we're see that here.
But besides that, my understanding is that though the internet is free, the various entities on the internet are equally free to refuse service. After all, if they were otherwise obligated, that would imply X's freedom can override Y's freedom, which also contradicts the nebulous ideal of freedom.
SC1 really doesn't make sense for this, 80% of the skill is just keeping on top of the mindless but mechanically intensive stuff, which is trivial beyond trivial for an AI.
SC2's automated away most of this (pretty much everything but production cycles), which makes it a better measure for AI vs human.
If you stay mostly in the produce aisle of your supermarket, you're 90% of the way to being added sugar free.
Which is admittedly different than completely sugar free, since that's entirely absurd.
But we've survived every generation except the last 4 without so much processed sugar, and we now have global supply lines handing us crops practically to our doorstep.