We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed.
We do. The legal term for terms like these is "unconscionable".
The infinite divisiblity prevents damage from losses like this, but flexible value has historically not been enough to solve the real problem.
As the amount of value accounted for by bitcoin transactions grows, the numerical amount of bitcoin available to cover them remains the same. This means that the bitcoin economy cannot expand without making any given amount of bitcoin more valuable -- i.e. they're a recipe for unavoidable deflation. The trouble with this isn't just a matter of perception, the fixed cap is gold-plated incentive for hoarding and worse.
If prices have to drop to make room for new value in the market, nobody wants to be the one that has to cut prices, so nobody does, so there's no money to cover the new economic activity, so the economy stagnates until the pressure becomes great enough that there's a sudden correction. Do some digging If there were a way to make a capped supply workable, by revaluing the markers or any way else, we'd still be on the gold standard. Here's one article laying out this argument against capped supplies — there are many more.
Its not about kids safety, it's about stigmatizing guns and gun owners
Don't take it personally, inbred losers that deep-dyed will go after anything that gets them attention.
From a marketer's point of view, Microsoft would be stupid to cut the bloat, at least to do it at any praiseworthy pace.
The empire-builder impulse is to Microsoft products what the Apple fans (however you describe those) are to Apple products: the companies have found their market. Boys are born liking big, impressive, loud and powerful machines, they like challenging (whether or not valuable) intricacy, they like always having a next conquest. Whatever else, Microsoft has been about that for a long, long time. The devotees of the empire-builder impulse love them for it. If they suddenly deliver a machine that doesn't, from that point of view, do anything, it won't be just seen as a slap in the face, that's exactly what it'll be.
Hardest: understanding the actual requirements, fairly often the first part of that is distinguishing clients' (management, other departments, customers, whatever) proposed resolutions to situations they as a rule neglect to describe from the actual situations and the resulting problems that need solving.
Next hardest: naming is the easily-describable part of it, a prerequisite but not the purpose. What it boils down to is making it worthwhile to read the code, to follow the "if you can't teach it, you don't understand it" rule and not waste people's time.
After that, the stuff you can learn by ordinary study.