NOTE: This post has many paragraph separators in it, I have no clue why they are not there when the comment is posted. Because it's cheap and convenient. You buy a relatively cheap device, connect it to your Wi-Fi, download the app to your phone, tablet, etc. and you can control the device from anywhere. Also, most people don't know anything about the device they bought works so they aren't aware of the risk they are taking buying that device. I know that being dependent on a third-party for a device you use to function is a risky thing and the problems with that. That said I do have two smart devices. A Withings Scale that uploads my weight to WIthings server and I can access there web site and use their app to view what my weight was are various times and if it's going up or down. Also a Leviton smart light switch in my bedroom so that I can go to bed with the light turned on and then turn it off from my phone once I'm in bed. To get a one touch widget on my Android home screen, I had to use the IFTTT service so each time I touch the button on my phone, a request is sent to IFTTT which sends a request to Leviton which then sends a signal to the smart light switch to turn on/off. It's kind of funny as it's such a ridiculous system. The smart light switch could easily have designed to listen on the local network and my phone could just connect directly to it, there would be a lot less hopping around and it would work when my internet access is down. I know that both could easily stop being smart at anytime (if the servers should down, the scale would just be a regular digital scale and the light switch would just be a normal light switch that couldn't be remotely controlled) but I decided that was a risk I was willing to take. I certainly don't make a habbit of buying devices that depend on the cloud and if I decided to switch all the light switches and other things in the house with smart ones, I would certainly pick a system that did not depend on a cloud service.

Sure, the constitution is a pretty good thing. One of the reasons for that is that is that it is a living document, it is designed to be changed and updated when needed. Article 1, Section 2 of the constitution contains the three-fifths compromise. Without the ability to be changed via amendments, getting rid of that would not have been possible.

The reason that Steam users say is because Valve has apparently said that they will provide a method to access games protected by DRM should they go out of business. However, as this is just a statement from Valve and not something legally binding between the user and Valve, you need to trust that Valve will honor what they said should they go out of business. I skeptical that should Valve go out of business that they will or even can do that. If they go out of business due to financial trouble then they might not have the resources to put out a solution for this. Also they might have resistance from game publishers should this mean making their DRM protected games will not be DRM protected anymore.