Why doesn't it answer the question? If you are a selfish individual that doesn't believe in giving back. there simply isn't much to discuss.

These companies literally could not exist without the massive public dollars + support poured into them. Warp couldn't exist without the funds from public pensions being gambled with. Since these same companies have zero qualms in raping public resources, the government should simply start taking their money or nationalizing their businesses.

These leaders have shown they will absolutely destroy society to make a few dollars. We should reject them on the basis of being a member of the human race.

Their greed is literally destroying society and we have to ask if they should give more or not? We're beyond the point of giving, people are going to start taking and they're already starting off trying to take things you can't ever give back.

Every tech company could not exist without the internet, developed by the US government/universities and released for free. Should they all be nationalized? Are they all "raping public resources"?

Open-source developers have plenty of ways to make money from their work. You can even stipulate in your license that companies who use the code to make more than a certain amount of money pay a fee. If developers choose not to do that, that's fine, but it means nobody is obligated to pay them.

Imagine Warp donated $1000 to Alacritty. Would you be happy then? What about $10k, or $1 million? What would be the appropriate compensation? Sure, Warp wouldn't exist without Alacritty, but they also wouldn't exist without the ARPANET. At the same time, Alacritty's developers didn't raise $50 million in funding, pay developers to build Warp's features, or do any of the marketing. How do we know how to compensate them? Answer: we look at Alacritty's licensing terms, which explicitly permit free use of the software as long the license is included in all copies (which the Warp devs have complied with).