Because in practice that "always-on DRM" is actually just purely an advantage for the customer with zero downsides. It only sounds like you're making a good point when you frame "provides the best shopping and library experience in gaming" in the least charitable way possible. The Valve hate-boner is so weird.

There are disadvantages. e.g. if you don't want to update a program (maybe the new version breaks your modded setup), too bad. Or if you need Windows still for compatibility, it no longer supports Windows 7, so you have to go hunting for old versions of the client and fiddle with it to prevent updates (if that still even works), at which point you'd might as well just mod it to remove the DRM instead.

Basically, it creates a failure point for setups that should otherwise last and be stable several more decades.

Can't you run old versions by setting the version in the game properties?

Not that I see. The publisher can add old versions as a "beta" that you can select if they want (e.g. Kerbal Space Program and Factorio do this), but otherwise you can only run the latest. Your choices for updating are "when launching", "when Steam decides", and "immediately". There is no "when I decide" or "never". e.g. Bethesda has apparently broken Fallout 4 multiple times over the last 1.5 years with no ability to revert after it had been stable for 5 years.

> always-on DRM is actually just purely an advantage for the consumer

Look me in the eyes and read this quote to me again. Then think about how yourself from 20 years ago would feel about reading this quote from someone else. You've gone so far down the rabbit hole but you don't realize you're in one.

Yeah I remember PC gaming 20 years ago, it sucked. Thank god Steam exists and made PC a real gaming platform.

> They invented loot crates. Hats. Etc.

You listed one thing. What's the "etc."?

I hope everyone who is so outspoken about loot crates are also fighting for TCG packs to be banned/regulated because they are literally the same level of "gambling".

People do compare TCGs to loot crates, in fact calling them the "original" loot crates. Also why "buy singles" has been the mantra for a long time.

Aside of gambling, packs have at least a plausible use for limited format.

Let's not forget mystery boxes for real toys and things like mini brands.

Though I am not outspoken about it, I think individuals need to come to terms with telling themselves no.

Otherwise we need to outlaw everything bad and open to abuse to specific individuals. Things such as cake, donuts, coffee, etc.

I think we can ban companies selling packages without disclosing exactly what is in those packages. I think we can regulate companies in that way without finding ourselves hopelessly slipping down some silly slope.

I can totally see EU making unwanted "dark" products returnable for full refund. I understand that already applies to anything that tries to force contracts terms on you after the purchase: you can choose not to agree and get a full refund.

> Though I am not outspoken about it, I think individuals need to come to terms with telling themselves no.

This really resonates with me. I feel like self-control has gone out of fashion, but it has a lot of merit.

I think it's difficult to just call things "self control" when there have been entire college majors / studies / casinos dedicated to tricking us into making the choices they want.

Look at the Apple price ladder on ipads. Look at any tactic by a casino - go to Reno and see many retires at the beginning of the month drop their whole social security check in the casino. Look at why they label things $9.99 instead of $10.00 Look at why they put all the overpriced candy at the cash register in a super market. Look at how they create junk food to be "perfect" and addictive source: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/world-hunger/trade-and-food... I have a lot of friends that stopped playing gacha games because they would come home drunk - the game would incentivize you to login - and then blow more money than they truly wanted to.

At some level it's unfair to say we should just "have self control" when you have entire academic institutions and entire industries figuring out how to get you to "crack" and make a bad decision that favors their pocket book.

So yeah - I agree - we need more self control - but it's being purposefully assaulted every second of our day by EVERYTHING.

Yeah, existing in the modern world you're surrounded by mind-hackers. Everywhere you go there are hacking attempts against your mind, trying to get you to buy stuff you shouldn't or want stuff you don't. It's really absurd.

Well then regulation should help. And people should stop doing outright stupid things - you have no reason to be in casino, in same way you have no reason lighting that cigarette or doing another round of binge drinking (or those gacha games, had to google WTF that is, same mind cancer as the rest, no thank you). You, nor me are not stronger than those addictions. Billions of miserable poor fuckers before us are proof enough, learn from their mistakes.

Attack from both sides, heck all sides - from the top with regulation. From the bottom by being mentally more resilient, there are endless ways to get there - ie do rock climbing (yes, not joking, it will change you for the better for good if you stick long enough). Or other sports and activities that challenge you, your fears, your laziness, push yourself physically. Do it 10 times and something clicks in the mind and it goes almost on its own afterwards.

Another angle - shame those working in such business. Goes for fuck ton of FAANGS and many others. I know its blurry and whatever else of an excuse will fly around, don't care. Have a clearly moral work or accept shame, or change for the better.

Its a terrible situation but by far the biggest mistake is throwing hands in the air and giving up immediately just because some greedy sociopathic billionaire wants a bigger yacht or rocket to compensate even more for their fucked up childhood, and thus pushes a lot of psychology phds against you. You don't have to even start to play that game, not even for a second. We are stronger, much stronger than that and real good life (TM) is not about anything digital in any way.

That's because it mostly doesn't work long term.

Depending on how your brain got wired, self-control condemns you to a life of misery while not being exposed allows you to live a normal life. Of course you cannot ask for societal experience to be tailored just for you but there seem to be a consensus on protecting the most vulnerable people from the most destructive habits. Where to draw the line is for everyone to find agreement upon and if that's not good enough for you, you need to find a safe haven.

Self-control is like a tourniquet on a severed leg, it can buy you time but you need an hospital at some point

Huh?

Most people have perfectly well avoided blowing all their money on baseball card packs or whatever other random "box of randomized items" without enduring a life of misery...

It's not that hard.

> Depending on how your brain got wired

Most people are lucky that their brain is cabled somewhat sanely

If self control were reliable we wouldn't need seatbelts, antilock brakes, bumpers, and other safety mechanisms. We would all just drive safely all the time. But that would be silly. Self control is not as simple and reliable as we want it to be.

Sometimes systematic solutions are better.

I agree that humans are fallible, but the analogy is still off despite being catchy, yet flawed. Seatbelts are passive mechanical systems; self-control is a complex, context-dependent cognitive function. Conflating the two oversimplifies how human behavior actually works.

There's definitely a double standard in the gaming community where people don't treat TCG packs as ethically fraught in the same way, despite being the same thing.

What does 'consume' mean in this context?

The function "consumes" the value. Its no longer valid in the function caller's scope.

Often the purpose is to consume the value and return a new kind of value. Maybe `validate_square` takes in `Shape` and returns `Option<Shape>`

If valid or invalid, we have consumed the shape so it cant be reused by accident and can't be used without handling the optional branches.

I'm new so maybe I'm off on this.

In Rust, this is how “ownership” works. Once a variable is moved to a new scope, ownership moves with it, which means that it cannot be used in the current scope anymore.

"Consume" is comparable to a "move" in C++.

If I consume your apple then you no longer have your apple and the apple will be gone once I finish with it. But because I eat apples whole, I can spit it out before I swallow and return it to you.

The analogy may not be perfect but the point is complete control of the object has been transferred to the function and so you no longer have access to it and it will be destroyed once the function ends, unless it's returned.

I always liked to think of it in terms of car ownership. You can immutably borrow my car (&car) but if you modify it, you're a jerk (you obviously can't modify it in Rust). Or if you're a mechanic you can mutably borrow (&mut car) it and upgrade it or something. Orr, if I sell my car to you, you've taken ownership of it.

fn borrow_car(car: &Car); fn modify_car(car: &mut Car); fn sell_car(car: Car);

Obviously there'd be other parameters in the functions, but yeah that's the gist of it.

It is equivalent to "pass by value and that binding is no longer valid after the call".