Garmin has been doing fitness tracking for a very long time now so it's not surprising they have all their bases covered. Their watches are among the best and put FitBit's offerings to shame. Not that I think this lawsuit has any merit though; unless FitBit actually advertises their watches as flawless health trackers.
Regardless of the device, measurements are not always going to be exact because of a variety of factors and HR monitors are notoriously finicky.
Having been involved in a lawsuit with a city before I can say it's not "lying" about precedents but rather how you can spin precedents to suit your arguments.
The DOJ will pull every case they can and try to say it applies for X reason. Then Apple will try to argue it doesn't apply for X reason and potentially these other cases are more relevant for X reason. The DOJ will respond, then Apple will respond, then they go to court and the judge acts like an irate asshole to both sides as they present their arguments. Then the judge will deliberate over which precedents actually apply to the case and typically say who is right based on some random court case that happened 20 years ago and has little to do with the current situation.
The legal system is a bit of a joke in my opinion. You don't get penalized for bullshit. The system actually encourages you to throw as much shit at the wall just to see what sticks.
It was not well written or even remotely subtle. In fact, I think it's the worst written Star Wars movie ever made. The entire plot relies on a massive string of convenient events. It's like they made up a bunch of action sequences, strapped it all together and started filming. The fact that it's a near retread of A New Hope makes it all the worse.
Time will not be kind to this movie. There's too many problems with it... too many things that don't make sense even for a Star Wars movie. I'd actually welcome another round of prequels over this.
You're essentially arguing that amateur work is professional because it serves a professional purpose. I can get my brother's nephew's cousin who took a design class once to make me a flyer but that doesn't make it professional. Even if I use it to market my business, that in itself doesn't make it professional. Professional work is done by a pro, not by someone who downloaded a program, dropped in some clip art and spent 10 minutes trying to decide between Papyrus or Comic Sans for the text.
All the examples you've given can be done in MS Word, just like html pages can be built in word. That doesn't mean Word is good enough for 99% of actual professional design work, much like GIMP isn't either.
You're part of the problem then. CMYK is absolutely essential and having an image editing program that doesn't support CMYK is like having a database without data types. There is no opposition to this. All image editing software should support RGB and CMYK at a minimum.
Likewise, having a UI that is at least as functional as Photoshop's would be a huge step forward. Professional designers spend a lot of time using image editing software and having a hacked together UI like GIMP's makes the program completely irrelevant.
There absolutely is a way to listen to users. Start with the professional designers who use this type of software daily and work your way down through the different groups of people that have distinct uses for image editing software. Create UI groups and tools that cater to each segment.
As it is, I don't feel GIMP would be appealing to anyone. It's too complicated for the novice, the UI is too clunk for the pro and it lacks essential features like CMYK which means it's not even a consideration for most creative workflows. The only segment of people GIMP seems to appeal to or is targeted at is open source zealots that have their head in the sand.
That's one of the most confusing parts though; the dips in light are not regular. From the article:
"It turns out there are lots of these dips in the star’s light. Hundreds. And they don’t seem to be periodic at all. They have odd shapes to them, too. A planet blocking a star’s light will have a generally symmetric dip; the light fades a little, remains steady at that level, then goes back up later. The dip at 800 days in the KIC 8462852 data doesn’t do that; it drops slowly, then rises more rapidly. Another one at 1,500 days has a series of blips up and down inside the main dips. There’s also an apparent change in brightness that seems to go up and down roughly every 20 days for weeks, then disappears completely. It’s likely just random transits, but still. It’s bizarre."
Are we running light with overbyte?