Bad stories reliably end in TNG. Usually, they're done after a single runtime. In Discovery, the awful plots smear across multiple episodes, if not entire seasons.
Big arcs can work in Star Trek, but they have to be good. Discovery is like if the writers decided to make Pen Pals into a 12-episode saga. If something doesn't hit, it takes forever to rectify. Then, since they decided to start as a prequel, they did the star wars thing of irreparably tarnishing the stories that came before.
Ingress and egress costs are real and those assholes attached images to their spam. Hundreds of posts coming in at 700kb a pop does damage if you're relying on a cloud provider to store your shit. Then, it gets accessed by all your users.
Preface: I appreciate the sentiment, fuck Microsoft.
Projects typically aren't "hosted" on code repositories like GitHub.
Because the underlying version control technology, git, is meant to be distributed - it's super weird to draw that line in the sand. It's like saying "show me TXT files written with SublimeText, I hate Notepad++!"
I get that you might want to, like, judge a developer for using github? But, like... features are features. Build minutes are build minutes. If you fork a repo and use GitLab to manage it, does that make the project better?
On the web, there's semantic HTML and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines which focus on making content for the Internet as broadly interoperable and accessible as possible. The former from a technical point of view, the latter from a human interaction point of view. They go together hand on hand.
The Orville also had the advantage of being Not Star Trek™ in that they didn't have to adhere to sixty years of pre-established lore.
Discovery could have avoided the vast majority of that burden by being set in the far future. (And they painfully, eventually realized that.)
Edit: spelling.