Well vs community edition is free
For individual developers, for smaller companies, for open source development, sure, but not for everyone. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, just something to keep in mind if you want to use it at work.
Even if "caging migrants and separating parents from children" is evil, "selling cloud computing software to CBP" is not.
That is a matter of opinion. It's an opinion I do not share, and the fired employees also do not share.
Getting them to buy their software elsewhere isn't going to affect their policies and procedures.
For most other suppliers, probably not. For Google? If the biggest companies in the world would take a stand and say "no, enough is enough, we want nothing to do with this", CBP would be faced with a choice of either going with smaller companies, or changing their practices. There would have been a (small) chance that they would change their practices, at least somewhat, just to be able to stick with a major supplier.
Basically just like selling wedding cakes.
If you'll recall, the bakery won in the end.
If there are no repeating patterns of digits, PI is a Normal number
That's not what a normal number is, that's what an irrational number is. Follow the link you gave to see what a normal number is.
For instance, 0.1010010001000010000010000001
... is irrational and transcendental, but is obviously not normal.
This number has no repeating pattern, but as you say it's not normal.
Yes, the specification gives a list of conditions under which window.open() shall return null, do nothing.
Apologies for not checking carefully enough to get the details exactly right, but unless there was already a specification or documentation covering pop-up blocking at the time that pop-up blocking was added to browsers, it doesn't make any difference. Pretty much all of HTML 5, including this, is a rewrite of the standard to get it close enough to what browsers did, acknowledging that browsers were not conforming to the standards that were in effect at the time and were never going to. In some cases, for very good reasons.
When browser vendors are faced with a choice between following web standards and doing what their users want, the browsers that do what their users want win out. The web standards are clear what is supposed to happen when a web page has a neverending loop of window.open calls. The users are clear that any browser that implements that as specified is a browser that should not be used.
Google appear to believe that following web standards in this case is also hostile to users. I think there are other approaches that Google could take instead to protect their users, but to argue that they have to follow standards even if standards are unreasonable is not a good position to take.
Does it matter? Twitter's rules are clear that you're not allowed to evade a ban even if the ban was unfair, not even if you appeal and it gets reversed, so regardless of whether she was playing by the rules originally, she stopped doing that at some point.
That does mean there are situations where the rules are unfair, where it may be better to break the rules. No comment on whether that happened here.
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.