I encourage you to read my argument from the top again. I speak in terms of probabilities, not absolutes. I don't disagree that many people might not notice performance degradation when running multiple Electron apps. However, it is an incontrovertible fact that (all other things being equal) an Electron app will consume more memory than a native app will; and some people will experience swapping and reduced performance when running Electron apps where they might not experience that if they were solely running native apps instead. Also, it's important to keep in mind that people often run a healthy mix of apps at once--both native and Electron--and they'd have the ability to run more of them without risking swapping if they ran fewer Electron apps (again, all other things being equal). The closer you get to exhaustion, the more economy of consumption really matters.

I just can't see how this is that controversial a claim.

What you have here is not a controversial claim. It's also not what you've been arguing until this moment, but for whatever reason you've softened your position substantially, now to the point of (IMO) banality.

What's controversial (because it's false) is the claim that, "Memory is a precious resource." That is not a true statement.

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.

The impact on real people who have laptops is low because the aggregate amount of computer memory in the world is doubling every two years.

It doubled, people bought new laptops, and reaped those benefits by running multiple Electron apps seamlessly on those new laptops.

So it remains a false statement to say, "Memory is a precious resource."