No business has the obligation to keep running what you find useful. If it was that useful, someone else will make it.
If no one is doing it or well, I see no reason to just complain and offer no solution. If there are other solutions and Google is going to hurt or destroy "competition", that's what should be discussed.
That's ... not what most people are doing. People send _application_ errors on HTTP 200 response codes, because HTTP response codes are for HTTP and not applications. Most "REST" libraries and webdev get this wrong, building ever more fragile web services.
No one is trying to get it for free. They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.
If it's so great to use Apple Pay (one click, easy to revoke payment -- sounds great!), why would a customer not use it over browsing to a random page, entering CC details, and worrying if it will be hard to cancel?
I'd guess the convenience is not worth 10%, much less 30%, to most users.
You're not speaking to server authority but lag compensation.
Your "behind cover" example describes best your concern with lag comp. It works both ways. You having lower latency can suffer when attempting to take cover. However, you have the advantage when exiting cover; you will see others first.
It's as fair as it can be. As for feel, it definitely feels fairer than no lag comp.
Of course I want consteval, if a later C++ is available to me, but that doesn't excuse you writing constexpr does absolutely nothing, when it clearly does. It's no surprise your example doesn't fold calls without `-O3` or that one could produce a `constexpr` that doesn't fold to a constant (go ahead and try though :>).
But consteval function is also not a literal replacement constexpr. For example, you can't take a pointer to the former. There's a reason they co-exist and are not useless.
So does Amazon's HTTP API for browser clients. Is Apple going to snuggle up with Amazon and get the Brave browser banned for nuking their ads, trackers, etc?
I know quite a few cloud administrators that are systems programmers. They love to work in languages that they can lean on their compiler and not runtime to find a lot of mistakes.
Experienced programmers, if perf matters to their project, should think about their data structures, memory size, and access patterns. It's not clear why an experienced programmer would think an array defaults to wasting memory on a hash table. Why use an array, if they need lots of values and to delete them at random?
It's not though. There is nothing inherently negative having to use EGS compared to any other game hub. There is absolutely nothing negative about giving developers more money to make more and/or better games. It's a net negative to take 30% from developers doing the actual work.
If no one is doing it or well, I see no reason to just complain and offer no solution. If there are other solutions and Google is going to hurt or destroy "competition", that's what should be discussed.