From the summary: "Current prices are tied to retail. Without physical discs holding digital hostage we'll see a larger spectrum of pricing." As I understand this, paid downloads did not lower prices of AAA games because of retail price parity contracts. Paid downloads did, however, make the $5 to $20 tier for indie game pricing viable.

One thing not mentioned in the summary is that publishers of games distributed in physical copies owe a royalty to the age rating agency of each region in which a game is published. Publishers of downloadable games do not, instead relying on self-certification through the IARC form. The age rating agencies allow this because it's a lot more practical to update a game once it is found to have been misclassified.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who ever posts in the tag for a particular toy line. Either I guessed the wrong tag, or I'm the only person on fedi interested in that topic. Which is more likely?

A level playing field would for the vast majority of positions be blind hiring based entirely on the established work product with all sources used triple checked and any and all appeals to emotion in the portfolio grounds for disqualification.

The summary states that Reddit owes the OP a reason why the user was banned, as well as a complete, untruncated copy of the user's posting history.

The summary states that the relevant law is Article 17 of the EU's Digital Services Act.

Toxoplasma gondii infection can lead to a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions.

There's a difference:
- In the case of a remote test, those who fail are not out the cost of travel and accommodation.
- In the case of an in-person test, those who fail are out the cost of travel and accommodation.

Not even denied for inability to afford last-minute travel to a city where the exam is held?

How much of that is related to GOG's reputation for being selective about what games and genres they accept? I get the impression that GOG is a bit more "curated" than some other PC game stores. The curators don't really want visual novels (a style of menu-driven adventure game). And apart from new releases by CD Projekt (which owned GOG before the end of 2025), I suspect that GOG seeks to poach "catalog" games that have already been successful on the competing store Steam as opposed to having a game at day one.

Sources include GOG forums (thread; thread)

Use of "digital" meaning purchasing a download appears to have originated in "digital phonorecord delivery", a term of art in a United States copyright law.

My own NES emulator is on Codeberg, but there are well over a dozen emulators on GitHub. Start here:

- LIJI32/SameBoy (Game Boy)
- TASEmulators/fceux (NES)
- mgba-emu/mgba (Game Boy, Game Boy Advance)
- nesdev-org/MesenCE (NES, Super NES, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, PC Engine, Master System/Game Gear, WonderSwan)
- jsgroth/jgenesis (Mega Drive/Mega CD, Super NES, Master System/Game Gear)
- dolphin-emu/dolphin (GameCube, Wii)
- stenzek/duckstation (PlayStation)
- ares-emulator/ares (numerous)
- Dwedit/PocketNES (PocketNES on Game Boy Advance)
- FluBBaOfWard/NitroSwan (WonderSwan on Nintendo DS)
- FluBBaOfWard/NGPDS (Neo Geo Pocket on Nintendo DS)
- FluBBaOfWard/NitroGrafx (PC Engine on Nintendo DS)

Which emulator of a 20+-year-old console did you see deleted from GitHub, unless it included ROMs or system software copied without permission?

The problem is that a lot of home ISPs don't let their customers port forward because there just aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around, and I'd bet a lot of your audience are behind ISPs that don't provide IPv6 (such as Frontier fiber). When an ISP is using carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) to put an entire neighborhood behind a single IPv4 address, how would the ISP's router know to which customer to direct a TCP SYN packet received at that address? I guess each Forgejo instance operator could pay per month for some sort of proxy service using a reverse SSH tunnel.

No. While parts C, D, and E are legally shaky, A and B, so long as they are temporally centered around the event, aren't on shaky legal ground at all. So if he had destroyed they data prior to attempting to cross the border itself, the government would almost certainly lose in court. But if he wiped the phone after he entered the checkpoint but before they asked him for it, they would probably win, and given that he caused the destruction of the information after they seized the phone, they will certainly win.

Only if A) he can convince a jury that he's the type of retard who would setup a duress password so that a 1 or 2 letter typo of the real password would activate the duress password and B) the feds weren't monitoring the phone electronically and able to see the inputs. One of the first questions the prosecutor would ask would be "So you've never mistyped anything in your life? Note that they would take the time to get all his old texts from his service providers and any posts from his online accounts, so assuming he followed his lawyers advice he would say yes he had. Then there would be a series of followup questions which would make him look like an idiot for choosing that type of password, before the prosecutor would wonder aloud why an idiot would install a separate OS on his phone, leading the jury to conclude he was lying about the real password being close to the duress password.

You can simply state because you felt like it. They have no authority to search the cloud servers and they cannot legally compel speech, only truth.

False statements to the FBI are illegal, and what with them not keeping recordings of their interviews they have conveniently charged people with this before. CBP is not the FBI however. That being said, providing a password that wipes the phone is destruction of evidence, regardless of whether there was anything illegal on the phone or not. He's proper fucked.

If you're using your Google Account to sync your TOTP keys across devices using Google's Authenticator app, you need some way to sign in to Google for that.