Yep, it baffles me that a lot of people would rather not have the option to reject cookies. Its weird to say "I don't want to stop a website tracking me because the UX is terrible. I'd rather get tracked instead.".
Of course, it would be better if the UX were even better, but I'd rather take something over nothing.
> Yep, it baffles me that a lot of people would rather not have the option to reject cookies.
Back in the day browsers offered this natively. When the advertising companies started building browsers there was a lot of incentive to see that go by the wayside of course...
But the earlier comment isn't saying that you shouldn't have options, rather that the law needs to be more specific, such as requiring browsers to work in coordination with website operators to provide a unified solution that is agreeable to users instead of leaving it completely wide open to malicious compliance.
These kind of laws need to be careful to not stifle true innovation, so it is understandable why it wanted to remain wide open at the onset. But, now that we're in the thick of it, maybe there is a point where we can agree that popup dialogs that are purposefully designed to be annoying are in volition of the spirit and that the law should be amended to force a better solution?
> that the law needs to be more specific, such as requiring browsers to work in coordination with website operators
1. The law isn't about browsers or websites. It equally applies to all tracking. E.g. in apps. Or in physical stores.
2. The world's largest advertising company could do all you describe. And they do work with websites. First by repackaging tracking through FLoC. Then by just simply repackaging tracking and calling it privacy: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1664682689591377923
> It equally applies to all tracking. E.g. in apps. Or in physical stores.
Obviously. And where there are problems in those domains equal specificity would be asked for. But since we're talking about in the context of browsers specifically...
Cookies don't matter. There are many different ways to track users without using cookies even when talking about browsers specifically. But what does matter was already discussed. Are you reading comments in complete isolation again or what? There is a context that has been built up.
> Cookies don't matter. There are many different ways to track users without using cookies
Oh look. Here's what I wrote:
--- start quote ---
The law isn't about browsers or websites. It equally applies to all tracking. E.g. in apps. Or in physical stores.
--- end quote ---
> But what does matter was already discussed. Are you reading comments in complete isolation again or what? There is a context that has been built up.
This is literally the only thread around your comment. There are dozens of other discussions, yes. I was specifically replying to your comment, and expecting replies within the context of your comment.
A historical law that hasn't had anything to do with the discussion since conception isn't about browsers, but the discussion about how future laws might improve upon 'malicious' use of browsers is. Said 'malicious' use of browser isn't about cookies, though, so such a new law would not be written about cookies anyway, so where do you think cookies even fit?
> I was specifically replying to your comment
You replied to it in a mechanical sense. But you did not reply to the content of it. And now are apparently doubling down on that even after it was brought to your attention...
I describe it slightly differently. Similar to what the author described, I'll first plan and solve the problem in my head, lay out a broad action plan, and then put on music to implement it.
But, for me the music serves something akin to clocks in microcontrollers (and even CPUs), it provides a flow that my brain syncs to. I'm not even paying attention to the music itself, but it stops me from getting distracted and focus on the task at hand.
I think you and the parent comment are onto something. I also feel like the parent since I find it relatively difficult to read code that someone else wrote. My brain easily gets biased into thinking that the cases that the code is covering are the only possible ones. On the flip side, if I were writing the code, I am more likely to determine the corner cases.
In other words, writing code helps me think, reading just biases me. This makes it extremely slow to review a LLM's code at which point I'd just write it myself.
Very good for throwaway code though, for example a PoC which won't really be going to production (hopefully xD).
Maybe it’s bc I’ve been programming since I was young or because I mainly learned by doing code-along books, but writing the code is where my thinking gets done.
I don’t usually plan, then write code. I write code, understand the problem space, then write better code.
I’ve known friends and coworkers who liked to plan out a change in psudocode or some notes before getting into coding.
Maybe these different approaches benefit from AI differently.
I use Firefox simply because the address bar UX is better. It prioritizes my history over search results, I almost never have more than 3-5 tabs open, so I rely heavily on typing a keyword in the address bar to go to a page in my history.
Another thing I rely a lot is Multi-Account containers, which makes it very to keep aspects of life separated.
Apart from amusement, this served as a nice example when you are giving talks at universities trying to motivate students to tinker. Just multiple gravity by -1 and voila!
