I have experienced this myself, but I have also experienced the reverse many times. There are also many games that won't run on Linux at all. Most of these have Windows kernel DRM, so I wouldn't buy them anyway myself, but I'm not the whole market.

You don't need to have a monopoly for antitrust laws to apply. Only you brought up monopolies.

And as counter-argument I'm supposed to trust an AC? HahaHAHHahaHahAHhaHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAH

Until they see a trailer for a game that looks interesting, click through to learn more about the game, and find that it's available for (say) Linux, Windows, and NES. A lot of games from smaller studios get released on PC first, or PC plus an unlicensed release on a long-obsolete console, while the studio awaits approval to obtain a devkit for the major modern consoles.

Does this include things like Steam Deck?

If you refer solely to physical distribution through big-box electronics store chains in the United States, what's so special about that sales channel?

Likewise, a lot of people use obsolete Mac computers, and a lot of people (including myself) use obsolete Nintendo Entertainment System consoles.

As I understand it, the "obsolete" label applies to a video game console once its manufacturer is no longer certifying new games for it. For example, Shakedown: Hawaii is the last Wii disc game in Europe, the last Wii U disc game in North America, and the last PlayStation 3 game. See list of last licensed games by console.

You are technically correct that the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 does not apply because Ryanair operates in Europe, not the United States. However, the United States is by far not the only country with a disability discrimination law. Ryanair is headquartered in a suburb of Dublin, Ireland, a European Union member state that has its own disability accommodation law framework. So let me address the spirit of coats's question:

Say someone can't use a smartphone without setting it to use large print. If Ryanair requires its customers to use an application that is incompatible with large print setting, what recourse does the customer have under Irish law?

What country? I seem to remember some countries have instituted policies that require "social" web applications to thoroughly verify the age of all users. Australia, for example, passed such a law that takes effect next month.

One alternative to YouTube is uploading your "shitty but fun songs" on your own website.

How so, now that almost all web and native applications use TLS to communicate with the server? An attacker running a packet sniffer on a TLS session can see the connection's IP address, the server's hostname, the size of communication, and nothing else. This would amount to "A user connected to Ryanair and received a data volume typical of a checkin."

This is the case for many applications. Both major smartphone operating systems' included web browsers support progressive web applications (PWA). These use a service worker, a script cached on the device that acts as a proxy to cache a particular site's pages, scripts, and data and present them to the user even while the device is offline. They grant additional permissions to bookmarks on the device's home screen. For example, Safari for iOS allows a website added to the home screen to use the Push API to receive notifications through its service worker.

However, a lot of service providers maintain a native application for iOS and a native application for Android instead of relying on a PWA. Based on my recent conversation with UnknowingFool, this includes at least Grab, Doordash, Uber Eats, Instacart, Favor, Grubhub, and Postmates, and these providers are thought to have (unstated) good reasons for doing so.

Turn off AC comments again you cryptofucks, 99.9% of AC posts are fucking garbage

Unless you're an Uyghur Muslim you probably won't be enslaved there, you can put your money into foreign banks and then you will still have benefit unless the risk catches up to you.

Capitalism inherently means literally only one thing, capital controls the means of production. Who has the capital? The wealthy. Who therefore has the right to control? Yeah. That's right, the wealthy. Capitalism IS about the rights of the wealthy.

Capitalism is about control of PRODUCTION, not about control of stuff you bought. That is orthogonal to capitalism. You have to have the right to own property for capitalism to exist but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with it.

Rent seeking is orthogonal to capitalism as well, because it's not about production. Hell, it's barely even about ownership, since you can sublet.

TL;DR: All the stuff you think is capitalism is really about a specific form of capitalism with other things added on. Capitalism is NOT inherently about free MARKETS. You can have mods on capitalism to try to make it make the freest possible markets, but they aren't the soul of capitalism. Rich people controlling stuff is.

This is ignorant. There are lots of reasons why consumers would have to buy a product which is hard to repair. For example there's no credible alternative, use of a specific product is all that's supported, it's mandated by an employer, the manufacturer has driven competing manufacturers out of business, etc. This is why we have antitrust and warranty laws.

The very essence of capitalism is that those who control the capital control the means of production. Everything else you think is necessarily part of capitalism isn't except for private property ownership, as you can't have capitalism without that. The right to purchase a competing product means absolutely nothing when there is no competing product, when a specific product can be mandated, when the alternate products cannot reasonably be maintained or there are deliberate incompatibilities, etc etc. It's really truly sad how few people around here know what capitalism is, means, and does.

This is the problem right here. Why is Google not considered an accessory? Google received consideration to disseminate it and the either employed no or insufficient oversight. This is not simply user-provided content which was posted without their cooperation.