Hmm… I always thought that the goal of consoles is to provide fewer options. You don’t need to choose which components you want, you just buy the one and only box offered by the company.

And then there are the exclusives, where you also, as someone buying a different box, didn’t get the choice to buy the game released for another box. And generally have fewer games to play.

Then there are the (online) shops, where, as a console player, you either have no choices or fewer.

Then there is multiplayer, where with a console you cannot use other services, and even have to pay for it.

And modding, which is also pretty limited on console, and you generally don’t have the tools to create mods yourself to customize your gaming experience.

So… All in all, I thought the main ‘advantage’ of consoles is that you don’t need to make so many choices, because making decisions is hard. But that comes at a cost, lower entry cost (hardware), but higher operating cost (games, online play).

deleted by creator

Don’t worry, review was done by an LLM as well. ;)

privacy guarantees

security guarantees, not privacy guarantees.

With root you can actually control what kind of things each app does and stores, and check what data it transmits to remote servers. But it also breaks/weakens the android security model, where apps can do, store or transmit stuff protected from the eyes of the user of the phone.

I’ve been using Linux since IDK over 25 years. But I have multiple devices and frequently distro hop. Currently, Bazzite on SteamDeck, a CachyOS upgraded from an Archlinux on Laptop, Fedora Kinolite on a different one and a tablet, QubesOS on a third, OpenSuse MicroOS on a container host, Debian on a Server and another container host, Archlinux on another server, bunch of OpenWrts on routers and switches, NixOS on some RaspberryPies and a build server, some Debian based Proxmox PVE systems…

So… I guess I’m just confused on my identity on that pipeline.

Kurzum: Erst wenn Sie mit der Ware an die Kasse gehen und eine eindeutige Kaufabsicht mit Preisvorstellung abgeben, entscheidet sich, ob Sie den Artikel auch wirklich zu diesem Preis erhalten. Sie haben kein Recht, den angegebenen Preis einzufordern.

In short: Only when you take the goods to the checkout and express a clear intention to purchase at the asking price will it be decided whether you will actually receive the item at that price. You have no right to demand the stated price.

https://www.focus.de/immobilien/wohnen/falsche-preisauszeichnung-muessen-sie-trotzdem-den-richtigen-preis-zahlen_a0f9868d-30c0-45f0-b25e-27893a11b914.html

To me, that the price label is accidental wrong doesn’t really matter.

I’m not sure there is a difference between those things in the German law.

As I said, in Germany the price tag is a mere price suggestion, the final offer and transaction happens on checkout.

In my case it was an electronic article, where the price tag showed a much lower price and the cashier then demanded much more. But it turned out that they can do that.

Well… In Germany apparently they can.

The price tag is not binding, it is a mere price suggestion. The final price is the one when you actually buy it at the checkout.

Haggling is legal in Germany. The cashier is making the offer.

Wherever it is discrimination or not would probably depend on the metrics used to decide the price.

If someone is really desperate for an article, then I could imagine that the cashier can raise the price.

But I am not a lawer. This is just my assumptions on how it could be implemented.

And if they do it on an individual basis.

Like do they detect that a shopper is in a hurry, or if they just need one more ingredient for their cake so they are willing to pay more.

Sure… If you even notice it. And if enough people will care and if there are still stores around that don’t do that, clearly superior profit maximising scheme.

I’d rather want this stuff to become illegal. So calling your representatives, make news and go to the streets about this would I think help more that yet another boycott.

Issue is that haggling is actually legal in many countries.

So at the cashier they will make you an offer, which, if you pay, accept.

Now with technical support making individual offers becomes pretty easy and effordless on their end, but if you are in a hurry you don’t have that technical support to make a counter offer that effordless… So the shopper is at an disadvantage. Either way, your reaction, wherever you buy or not will train the AI of the store to extract the maximum amount of money of the broad customer base. If some people are priced out of living, they probably don’t care.

In Germany the price is actually set at the cashier, not the tag. I found that out the hard way once, where the price tag was wrong and I had to pay more.

So dynamic pricing wouldn’t even require deploying these smart tags, the cashier or the ‘smart’ self-checkout could just do it on their own. They could just use their cameras, analyze your face to figure out if you are in a hurry or not, or in any other way willing to accept a higher price and then offer you the ware to something you are probably going to accept.

The future is realtime individualized price gouging.

No, but it can crush it.

She is an antisemite, so she is against Israel because she is against the Jews. Other people are against Israel because of their governments genocidal actions. They are not the same.

Well… at least they aren’t getting shot and killed by the police.

That would actually be the wrong thing to want. In an ideal system trust would always begin by the owner of the hardware, where possible, not the software or vendor they decide to trust.

First the person that bought the system should take the ownership by overwriting the previous owners keys, and from there start signing the vendors key, they decide to put their trust in. Because it is important that the system is trustworthy to the end user/owner first.

Any anti-cheat mechanism relies on not trusting the person that owns the hardware, and why would that be good?

Maybe. Als long as it isn’t authoritarian, protects the weak from the strong and provides the people with the most personal positive freedom, security and safety, without infringing on the personal freedom of others, it should be fine. On the specifics we will have to work together on.

But we are leading off track. Currently I would say that the machinations of Russia, China, the U.S, Israel, and Iran are not good for the world. And in case authoritarian regimes, this can be traced back to the leaders of these countries, not the population. The fish stinks from the head. So saying this or that country is bad, doesn’t mean the population should suffer.

IDK, I couldn’t think of what kind of repercussions that would have… That would really depend on how it is dissolved and what would come after it, I suppose.

But TBH, with the right handling, organization and proper new structure, every nation should be dissolved… Cosmopolitanism would have its perks.

TBH, Russia is a country and does not equal Russians citizen. Saying that a country or its existence is bad, doesn’t mean all people with citizenship of that county are bad. People will still be there when a country is dissolved.