That depends. Inflation is a measure of the cost of living in terms of currency. It can be high either if goods and services required for living become scarce, or if currency supply increases. Currency supply increasing does affect asset prices.
`it's technically possible to pass the blame to other people` presupposes that the blame belongs to the reporter unless effort is taken to "shift" it. This is just an inaccurate worldview as many people have pointed out clearly in this discussion. If there's a vulnerability in software the blame lies with people who wrote and maintain the software, not someone who finds and discloses a vulnerability. The person who should `check in on the status of the fixes` is the person who owns the thing being fixed, which is very much the kernel and distro maintainers and not the security researcher. It is you who are willfully shifting blame to an innocent party
You're mentally stuck in 2009-2015. The world has moved on and Spain is now significantly outperforming Germany in growth (obviously not yet in wealth, which is the integral of growth over much longer time periods). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-YZeqk8NCQ&t=456s
The problem with this argument is that pharmaceutical companies are private businesses trying to make a profit, not charities. If it were truly unprofitable to sell drugs in, say, Canada or France, pharmaceutical companies would just not sell their drugs in those countries. It is _less_ profitable to sell drugs in those countries than America but still profitable, which is why they still try to capture those markets. If America fixed this imbalance by forcing a lowering of drug prices in the American market, there's no reason to believe that this would cause raising of prices elsewhere. The only way this would be possible is if it were truly unprofitable to sell the drugs elsewhere, which can't be the case since these are corporations not charities. The real impact would be to slow down new drug development, since existing drugs are already profitable to sell everywhere in the world even in countries with more regulation, but if America fixed its market by lowering drug prices for Americans, the total profitability of pharmaceuticals would decrease, decreasing the incentive to create new pharmaceuticals. That's a totally different and very plausible impact. Rising drug prices for existing drugs in other countries is not a plausible impact.
I think it's likely that both the blog poster and the maintainer are being perceived as more negative in tone than the intent / reality. They both included disclaimers "I must be doing something wrong. And if I am, I'm sorry." and "whatever, it’s their blog so they can do what they want." They're also both giving critical feedback "But, if I'm not, this is a problem right?" "Kinda wish the author would attempt to collaborate rather than write stuff like this" but in both cases the criticism is extremely mildly worded compared to most toxic online discourse. This seems... great? Isn't it good we're able to disagree so politely? It's not toxic to have a disagreement or to give critical feedback. We don't need to all pretend to agree with each other all the time or be happy with each other in order to have a civil discourse.