Underpriced according to who?

The market has a certain load it can bear in terms of how high it goes, but how is that the same thing as "this thing is underpriced?." Not to mention that it requires ignoring the role of scalper bots that can buy up supply faster than organic humans - even those intending on scalping (but doing so w/o bots) - can buy (especially if you factor in website crashes from the influx of bots).

How do we know that the scalpers would not just continue, but raise their prices even more? It may seem a silly question to some, but IDK, it's the first one that stands out in response to the idea of just raising prices.

What do you mean by this?

Do you know what a faulty comparison is? I'm guessing you don't.

I wonder if there is a way to keep track of a purchase being made by a connection to a particular website. If so, I don't see why they couldn't track the time taken to make one or more purchases, and deny it automatically if under a particular threshold.

Sure, bot makers could just adjust for it, but at some point they would adjust the time taken by the bot by so much that they would absolutely lose that speed advantage bots have to humans, IMO leveling the playing field dramatically.

People using AI for arguably positive things doesn't become bad just because bad peoiple use it, or it is used in bad ways. That's terrible logic whether applied to technologies, members of a fandom or hobby, or whatever. Use of AI to drive audio unmixing and editing in the likes pf SpectraLayers, or the likes of Project Revoice using it to give people who lost their voice to diseases like ALS their voice back have NOT been negated, this is beyond retarded logic.

Kind of ironic to say given the incredibly faulty logic at work in these comments.

Are the people pleading actually rolls of Bounty in human skin suits? How else can they plead "Quilty?"

One problem with this hypothesis I see is ... didn't a company that makes porn movies get caught seeding their own torrents - which blew up in their face after they tried taking to court people who torrented said movies?

I can't help but imagine that would make such maneuvers, similar maneuvers, seem less likely to work - that there are cases of people trying it only to have it blow up in their faces, I mean.

How did shoplifters force a store, any store, to potentially understaff their stores (adequate staffing being, time and again shown in virtually every training videos that exists / has been leaked online to be an effective deterrent? How did the shoplifters force a store to take a method that has real potential problems?

They didn't. Only the store choose to do that.

This "SOLELY X makes Y do Z" thing is not logical.

People with physical disabilities still shop for food too, you idiot.

People who think solely one factor has one outcome while ignoring other variables being part of it - in this case those who choose to ignore that it is the store choosing potentially problematic (and dubiously legal) methods to deal with the problem and nobody else.

I may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that was illegal in the U.K (as well as in the U.S interestingly).

Those who think, whether erroneously or correctly, that more cores = more tasks that can run concurrently without needing to fight for CPU time, and greater granularity in being able to divide up tasks that can be parallelized?

What do you mean "discover the price?" Pardon me if I'm being a little slow...