Good on you for considering other perspectives, and acting. Many people only come to reinforce their existing ideas. FWIW your product itself looks good, if I'm ever in the market for a Datagrid type component, I'll consider it.
I know this isn't your actual question, but I think you should consider if the tone of your article represents the company you're trying to build. To me it reads as informal (comparison table "yes but weird), jokey (meme at top) & one-sided (can't find one point you lose at). It feels like poking at your competitor, not like an attempt at a neutral comparison. Now they're poking back via lawyers.
Maybe you do need a lawyer in this instance, maybe not, but if you're committed to this style when dealing with competitors you'll likely need a lawyer in the future.
With the increasing balkanization of streaming TV/film services, I wonder if piracy will start making a comeback. When everything (or most things) are under one roof, streaming makes sense - a single bill, one place to find content etc. Wondering which show is on which platform, or having to consider signing up for a subscription to a new service for a single show is not a good user experience, not to mention the single monthly bill ballooning to 3 or more.
If you you call out any of the rampant self-aggrandizement, exaggeration, humble-brags, or in some case outright lies there's no real upside, and plenty of potential downside.
For a small team of capable engineers, working on something that has low consequence for any single change failing plus a strong business motivation to move fast: sure, do without code reviews if you want.
There is no universal "best practise" for building software, there is just whatever works best for your context. Practices can, and should change as your business context does. There are some things that are net beneficial for a team in the majority of situations though, I'd consider code reviews one of these things and make that the default.
Yeah - in my experience 6-10 people per team is typical, often with one of them being dedicated QA. Having this, plus a separate central QA team is one way to address the pitfalls of embedded QA I was pointing out - they can cover for time away for team QA, or act as bench capacity.
A person doing manual testing, which is a gate to deployment would certainly be hard to make work for deploys as fast as you're targeting. It may still be valuable to have someone separate to the devs testing your product (in production, not as a gate to release) looking for things your automated testing, customer feedback or metrics may have missed. Whether this would be valuable is really context-dependent.
I agree, this all makes sense. Although I think the team-embedded QA is generally the right thing, I wouldn't use it blindly in all cases. Some teams I manage only produce HTTP API's, these are ideal candidates for automated testing (incl. end-to-end integrated tests) and the developers are happy to own this without a QA on the team.
I've also arrived at this approach and don't think it's that uncommon - IMO the article is presenting a false dichotomy.
There are still gotchas to look out for in the team-embedded QA approach. In typical team sizes, you often end up with only one QA per team - you need to make sure they have cover (everyone needs a break), and they need support in their discipline (do something to share QA knowledge across teams).