I definitely find the OP's perspective a little obnoxious. Being less-wrong is actually fairly easy (in the grand scheme of things), the problem is that nobody cares about being right.
Yeah, hearing TG's UI/UX described as not good made me do a double take. It's the best UI I've ever seen in a chat app, and I've probably used at least a dozen by now.
>The actors I've seen taking advantage of it are highly unlikely to front up with a credit card and provide what amounts to personally identifiable data (i.e. make a credit card payment) in order to mass enumerate the API.
Unless they just steal a credit card. Not unlikely, given who we're talking about here.
>as soon as legislation is introduced by governments to make the parties producing software or hardware responsible for the stuff they dump on the open market.
AKA the plausible end of open source. Once writing any program and sharing it can get you sued, people will stop doing that.
>The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source.
'Open Source' was/is a rebranding of the term 'Free Software' to make it easier to sell to suits. Eric Raymond has said as much about his invention of the phrase. The idea that it's just about "being able to read the source" is wrong. It's not vague at all, you just didn't do your research.
> Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax.
You are not the target market for this product. "A few more dollars than my self hosted solution..." is a sentence that typically takes you way outside the target audience of most products in this vein.
It is generally adversarial to call people labels they wouldn't use themselves. Sometimes that adversarial tone is warranted. On Hacker News, in a top level comment that's starting off the conversation is probably not one of those places.
