there are no good people in this. mc, visa, itch.io, and steam all caved to regressive bigots.

True, they will always play the victim even as they're hurting and exploiting people they see as less than. Don't allow them to have any evidence of credibility. I think his idea of hell would probably be having to lower himself to the standard of living most people would consider normal and comfortable. Having to learn to actually survive day to day if he were to find himself suddenly without a cent of the money he was born into and all future wages and earnings garnished to pay the people he has harmed, would probably be a fate worse than any hell he could imagine. I know there's no justice and there is pretty much no chance of him ever facing any sort of proportional punishment or consequence for his actions. But, if I could make it happen, having to suddenly learn to survive with the rest of us mortals in the society he has helped create, in his late fifties, wondering how he will even afford something as basic as healthcare while his body rapidly ages from stress and gradually falls apart, after a lifetime of unimaginable privilege, unable to go anywhere or do anything he enjoys without being recognized and having people curse his name. That would be the fate I would wish on somebody like him.

I actually think this is the only way forward past phones. All the AI assistant tools, voice controlled speakers, foldable devices don't really change how we use 99% of the software. VR/AR, when (if?) finally done right will change that.

Not sure how to go about marketing that in our current disposable society, though. Ditto. The most likely solution would be EU regulations forcing longer battery life/better battery safety. Maybe the new law for replaceable batteries in smartphones could be enough, it includes a rating on charging cycles which could be the new "muh number is bigger!"

Facial recognition hates jugalos and adversarial clothing patterns

Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".

You are more than welcome to cite the actual Geneva convention to show where I'm wrong.