But... I didn't dismiss them, I specifically addressed the flawed structure of their argument.
They made some more assertions in the second paragraph but didn't offer any support for them so I haven't addressed them separately.
With something like: "Undo support used to be table stakes, but now I'm surprised when it works" —I have to go back to the "two Electrons" I mentioned previously: not sure what world this is where software and business interests have so radically altered as to no longer support e.g. undo. It sounds like they ran into a bug related to undo somewhere and now are weaponizing the fact (as in their first paragraph) as a general argument against the framework.
The points they brought up are not meaningless and more people than what it seems you imagine are affected by the shortcomings outlined by the points made prior.