I love how your reasoning for the inclusion of Bok Choy is because there are Asian restaurants in SF, rather than the fact that it's one of the most popular vegetables in the most populous country on Earth.
I've basically never been taken to a recipe without a rambling preamble from Google. While food blogs may serve two audiences, a long introduction seems to be a requirement to appear in the top Google search results.
If leek and asparagus are your biggest omissions, then I think they've done a pretty good job at representing food. The point isn't to have photo-realistic illustrations of every possible food. Instead, they're trying to create a useful set of pictographic primitives that can be used for communication for everyone person on Earth. Even if they had photo-realistic emojis of every cut of meat, it wouldn't be that useful.
The article didn't say how profitable they are. If they're brining in $1B of revenue per year, and have a profit margin of 30%, then that's 300M in profit, yielding a P/E ratio of 133. If they're growing at over 100% YoY (which seems insane at this scale), then they're down to a very reasonable P/E ration of 33 after 2 years.
My main discourse happens on Hacker News, because I enjoy the conversation here. I don't have a Facebook or Instagram and have plenty of ways to talk to people I care about. It's weird to me that you feel it is your right to have a Facebook account.
In the past, traditional media companies had huge effects on discourse, yet where never considered to be a common carrier. Facebook has really done very little to police its network, and we see that viral news is polarizing people and risking the stability of the nation.
Why would social networks be classified as a common carrier? There are plenty of options out there, and the capital required to start one is pretty low compared to something like a internet service provider or a train network. Not to mention that common carriers are also able to enter into contracts of carriage with passengers / users.
It let's you specify type definitions a DSL in Typescript using syntax very similar to Typescript's type definitions. Once you define your types in the DSL, you get Typescript types and parsing / verification for free. Not as general purpose as JSON Schema, but 1000x cleaner and easier to use.
Not sure why you'd want to disallow that.