Not sure that is going to be a solution either. Have you seen HDD prices lately?
In the end, corporate buyers are cornering the market for self-use technology. Once the consumer market is gone, and habits change, there may be no going back since a new subscription market will be built and self-perpetuating. So I hope the AI bubble pops before that happens.
So how about those state all-party-consent wiretap laws?
It really could be, that’s an issue that I always have trouble with with DS emulators.
Wow, awesome! Thanks so much for testing and that really makes the device a contender!
Well…perhaps YouTube’s TOS means you agree to pay such fees, if the father signed the kid up and agreed to them. And a court always has discretion, even if the default is to pay your own fees.
Cool, thanks! Have you tried Contra 4? With the bullets and enemies between screens, that may be the hardest challenge for a DS system.
Thanks for this. Does the system use the exact same physical gap between screens? I know some games do fake a continuous play area and were designed for the exact dimensions of the DS including screen gap.
That is always the litmus test for me, if those games naturally show the backgrounds and sprites scrolling between screens in a way that accommodates the exact same gap.
… To post on Lemmy?
Note, this is above “launch MSRP” which for the latest gen already had years of crypto and the start of AI pricing baked in.
Yes, agreed and exactly - and now Amazon’s “price history” AI button helps Amazon keep shoppers from using independent (more reliable) tools.
I think what makes this worse is that Camel Camel Camel may not be able to even function in a surveillance pricing world. It requires an objective same-price basis, and once surveillance pricing algorithmically re-prices for each shopper, a single-point third party can no longer track the price reliably for everyone.
Then the reason why surveillance price tracking is so unrealistic is because shoppers would need to actively submit and refresh their pricing for any comparison site to be valid, and that just isn’t going to happen.
I think unfortunately that overestimates the amount of information and discernment shoppers exercise, versus doorbuster/marketed deals and brand loyalty. Going back to net neutrality, “disclosure” just meant that fine print would be used to disclose, along with false “benefits” like saying you get “free” Netflix data on your cell plan, to sell it as a feature.
When you are online, as well, you will have no idea what anyone else is paying. The retailer will completely control the information environment unless consumers put forth an unrealistic, disproportionate amount of time to compare prices.
Disclosure is not how you kill stuff like this, it’s how opposition to this dies.
They are going to “enforce” disclosure rules but not enforce to prevent the substantive harms of surveillance pricing. It’s framed (and many stories and readers and commenters run with the narrative) that it’s a restriction, when it’s actually a permission. This means that unlike the direction Lina Khan’s FTC was taking to prevent surveillance pricing, it is saying to companies, “It’s fine to surveillance price as long as you disclose.” Meaning, open season.
It’s the difference between, for example, enforcing actual net neutrality versus enforcing “disclosure” about violating net neutrality.
The story and headline are pushing a narrative that hides what is happening.
The FTC made sure we didn’t call it “surveillance pricing” and shifted from prevention to disclosure.
https://prospect.org/2026/08/21/ftc-says-it-will-enforce-surveillance-pricing-it-wont/
At least in the US, you have a very narrow window to cancel and then you’re stuck with it, unless you pay a huge premium for a refundable ticket. But I agree, practically-speaking, the only solution in a late-stage capitalist marketplace is to create some crowdsourced pricing information to identify pricing outliers. Which, truly, isn’t a good solution.
If we had a functional government, this would be regulated/prohibited on an emergency basis, since in theory government is supposed to represent people and not corporations. Unfortunately, in 2026, we’re livestock to herd and fleece.
“Not Found” error. From the link, I assume you’re deeplinking to a temporary/personal tokenized download.
This doesn’t seem sarcastic.
/s
What is the x-axis on this chart? Time?
It’s important to remember, there’s no point in fighting against a worse future. Especially if you are in the minority, since you’ll lose anyway. Resign yourself to things getting objectively worse because nobody likes a whiner.
“Instead of chasing AI”? They heavily implement AI to lay off employees, even though it severely degrades service.
Their whole business model is just typical private equity nihilism. Buy a business with a lot of user inertia, strip out all the development and maintenance costs while leaving the bare essentials to keep subscriptions or ad revenue flowing, and let the hollowed out business zombie-walk as long as it makes money.
Fluff journalism.
Not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, but:
In all, since wiretap statutes are criminal statutes and Meta executives in theory could be charged if Meta is not only enabling but also directly receiving recordings from users, it’s a pretty crazy risk they’re taking.