this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
283 points (99.6% liked)

PC Gaming

15139 readers
420 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 45 points 1 month ago (2 children)

YES

DO IT AGAIN

DO IT LIKE 2002 AND BRING BACK MEMORIES SINCE I WAS 1 YEAR OLD WATCHING THEM GET SUED THE FIRST TIME

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

You remember things from when you were 1?

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Eh, I have flashes from that time. But remembering RAM companies getting regulated at that age does seem a bit much

[–] vardogor@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

maybe they're like Terrence Howard and have memories from inside the womb, too. after all, 1*1=2

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

BRING BACK MEMORIES

Yes, please, bring back read only memories; or ~~RAM~~ ROM for short.

[–] Trail@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

I didn't actually mean RAM, but ROM!

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Probably shouldnt let corporations declare they own all RAM produced for the next 3-5 years also.

[–] who@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Does anyone have a non-paywalled source on the lawsuit and article that references it which is linked at the top of this article? This is an interesting development that also makes much more sense than what is typically accepted as an explanation as it alleges the price inflation resulted from capitalistic imperatives of profit maximization (prioritizing high-demand production) as an act of purposeful collusion, apparently with successful fines enforced by both the US and China in the past. Would be interesting to see the specifics of that, as I wonder how much the rapidly shifted legal landscape in the US has enabled this.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

Not the law360, but there are others that are covering it https://wccftech.com/memory-trio-samsung-sk-hynix-micron-face-class-action-lawsuit/

search for this case number for more like it 3:26-cv-06345

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's the typical explanation?

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That it is just the demand in itself and the stupidity or "greed" of AI and chip manufacturing companies, rather than the inevitable trajectory of a capitalist economy where infinite growth subordinates the real material limitations of production (which includes the limitations of computation in general). So, they produce the conditions where profit increases by cannabilizing the market, which is a different thing than them just being some particularly bad acting individuals.

[–] Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Good. They need a serious kick in the teeth.