Only in win32 applications. When UWP and its successors arrived, the OS stopped providing that functionality. Some applications may still support it, but the automatic equivalence of double clicking the application icon to the close button was removed, because the application is mostly tasked with drawing these UI controls now.
Well, the standard window title bar still does. But with so many apps implementing their own borders, it's a bit of a crapshoot if it (or the window menu itself) will work with many apps. Even Microsoft apps sometimes forget, like Teams (of course...).
It's not clear what freedom you are sacrificing. Nobody is forcing you to play those games. If you don't want to let them run their anti cheat system, don't do it. This is not some unavoidable measure.
This has nothing at all to do with whether you are "forced" to do anything. Anyone who wants to play games should be able to do so without some abusive anticheat taking over their machine.
It doesn't matter what's written in their silly EULAs which nobody reads. I couldn't care less if it ruins the games or costs them billions in profits. You are morally justified in defeating their silly anticheat nonsense in order to enjoy games on your terms without them pwning your computer. You are only morally wrong if you actually cheat.
And it's not at all some "strange hill to die on". This is a fundamental computing freedom issue. It's about who owns the keys to the machine. It's the exact same issue Android users face when they install GrapheneOS only to discover their bank doesn't support it just because it's not owned by Google. In my opinion this should be literally illegal.
"abusive", "silly", "couldn't care less", "nonsense", "literally illegal". I don't think you'll find many people want to join your cause if you are this aggressive.
More on topic, I agree that you should be allowed to do with your computer what you want. That includes defeating their anti-cheat measures. Your computer, your rules. In return, they can refuse to support you or ban them from their servers. Their stuff, their rules.
But this idea that you are entitled to tell them they have to provide you with a version that does not have their anti-cheat measures, that is pretty far out there. That is where most people will stop following your reasoning.
> I don't think you'll find many people want to join your cause if you are this aggressive.
If I come off as aggressive, it's only because of my exasperation due to people sacrificing freedom for video games of all things. Online games that will be dead after a couple years. What a colossal waste.
Anyway, I'm no politician. I'm actually very close to giving up on these so called "causes", precisely because people refuse to listen. There's no point. Being polite doesn't make them listen. Nobody listened to Stallman. Threaten their convenience, their fun and games, and they're gone.
If they won't listen, then they deserve the consequences. One day all the corporations and authorities will start turning the screws on them. Only then will they start caring about this stuff. Nobody will listen to them either.
> But this idea that you are entitled to tell them they have to provide you with a version that does not have their anti-cheat measures, that is pretty far out there.
The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero. You could have zero fraud by ramping up the requirements before you trust someone enough to transact with them. That will result in very few purchases though. Decreases profits. So what they do is they let it happen and eat the costs. Fraud isn't a crime, it's an expense. Accounted for.
The optimal amount of crime is non-zero. You could virtually eliminate crime by implementing an orwellian dystopia where everybody is surveilled at all times. Nobody actually wants to endure such a subhuman existence though, so we're forced to accept the risk of crime. Tolerating some amount of crime is the price of our basic human dignity.
Same logic generalizes to online games. The optimal amount of cheating is non-zero. They could eliminate it by taking the computer away from us. That's an affront to our dignity as the owners of the machines. So we have to tolerate some cheating in order to keep our dignity.
These considerations are accounted for in society as a whole. It's no different here.
Theoretically possible doesn't mean we're capable of doing it. Like, it's easy to say "I'm gonna boil the ocean" and another thing for you personally to succeed at it while on a specific beach with the contents of several Home Depots.
Humans tend to vastly underestimate scale and complexity.
Because human brains are giant three-dimensional processors containing billions of neurons (each with computationally complex behaviors), each one performing computations >3 orders of magnitude more efficiently than transistors do, to train an intelligence with trillions of connections in real time, while being attached to incredibly sophisticated sensors and manipulators.
And despite all that, humans are still just made of dirt.
Even if we can get silicon to do some of these tricks, that'd require multiple breakthroughs, and it wouldn't be cost-competitive with humans for quite a while.
I would even think it's possible that building brain-equivalent structures that consume the same power, and can do all the stuff for the same amount of resources, is a so far out science fiction proposition, that we can't even give a prediction as to when it will happen, and for practical purposes, biological intelligences will have an insurmountable advantage for even the furthest foreseeable future once you consider the economics of humans vs machines.
That’s rather presupposing materialism (in the philosophy of mind sense) is correct. That seems to be the consensus theory, but it’s not be shown ‘definitely’ true.
a) Nothing about letting AI do grunt work for you is "not being a craftsman".
b) Things are subcontracted all the time. We don't usually disrespect people for that.
.NET wasn't the first either. Lisps were doing continuations in the 70's.
But "invented" and "revealed" are different verbs for a reason. The release of node.js and it's pervasively async architecture changed the way a lot of people thought about how to write code. For the better in a few ways. But the resulting attempt to shoe-horn the paradigm into legacy and emerging environments that demanded it live in a shared ecosystem with traditional "blocking" primitives and imperative paradigms has been a mess.
I think you're underestimating the role of .NET in this. It was .NET that popularized this concept for the masses, and from there it spread to other languages including JavaScript, which also borrowed the exact same async/await keywords from C#.
reply