We call memory a "precious resource" because it is often a fixed quantity in a given computer, and often the most expensive component after the display unit. Many laptops these days do not offer upgradeable memory, and even when they do, they often have very few slots in which to add it. So for many people, an upgrade involves an entire unit replacement at significant cost. I think most people understand this, so again, I don't see how it's particularly controversial.
Humans are not limited to one computer in their lifetime, so the resources of one computer at one moment in time are not relevant to this discussion.
Additionally, your own citation shows that at this moment in time a vanishingly small number of computers have an amount of memory that would result in any kind of performance degradation due to the use of one or a few Electron apps.
Therefore, Moore's Law applies, and we can safely say that resources which double every two years are not scarce.
Your continued insistence on a false fact will continue to be "controversial".
This discussion has never been about whether the aggregate amount of computer memory in the world is a fixed quantity. (At least, that's not what I meant to discuss, or how I think most people would interpret my claim.) It's about the impact on real people who have laptops with fixed amounts of memory in their hands today.
